Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 August	22 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Somer Thompson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per

WP:GNG does not apply to murders (otherwise every murder would be on WP), it needs WP:PERSISTENCE and some WP:LASTING effect of the crime. there was a spike in coverage on the victim's discovery and trial of her murderer. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There was no trial, according to the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable.
WP:NOTNEWS applies....William 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with delete for reasons above. -Jhortman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing apparent setting it apart from routine murders. Virtually unknown girl goes missing, body is found, virtually unknown suspect is arrested, pleads guilty. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination rationale invokes
WP:NTEMP must be kept in mind. No clear advantage to our readers or the encyclopedia in removing the article. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It's not persistence that it's in the new currently, it's only because someone plead guilty. Looking online, it seems the murder made routine coverage when it happened, nothing after, then routine coverage when someone plead guilty. Just because it took a couple of years to find the person doesn't mean it persisted the whole time. Caffeyw (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not persistent, no sources would care about the pleading guilty. The fact they did proves that it is still of interest.--cyclopia ^speak! 08:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With condolences to her family and friends, Wikipedia is not a compendium of true crime stories of perps and victims. Coverage is routine news reportage of a tragic crime and its legal aftermath. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intùiti creative cards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a non-notable deck of cards (game maybe?) with no reliable sources found. Seems to be a Polytechnic University of Milan student project. --

ЛееСуда. 23:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "at best" it's too soon for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 06:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McCarthy (swimmer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person just doesn't seem notable. Only claim to notability is being a Paralympian, though has no medals. Ir d'hore arachkallez (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable paralympian. Only things I find online are blogs/personal opinions/routine support pages. No news coverage, etc. Caffeyw (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Liddell vs. Team Ortiz. L Faraone 23:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyacey Uscola

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an MMA fighter who fails to meet

WP:NMMA because he has no top tier fights. I tried to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Liddell vs. Team Ortiz but that was reverted. There's nothing to show he meets any notability criteria that merit a separate article. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom He does not meet any notability criteria, but a redirect seems OK.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not notable outside of his TUF 11 appearance, so a redirect is appropriate. Luchuslu (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Dephy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally not needed article written probably by the author himself about himself.

georgianJORJADZE 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It may have some importance in Georgia but I do believe it does not deserve a place in English wikipedia because of its lack of importance. It may be in Georgian wiki I suppose but I don't think this guy adds anything to English wiki.

GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

(Weak) Keep. Additional sources can be found on Google Books, e.g., this one. Kober^Talk 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person has no importance as such on international stage. He may be included in Georgian wiki but I doubt his place in English wiki.

GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Notability guidelines on English Wikipedia do not discriminate on the basis of the nationality of a subject.

Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nallatech

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company with no references to show otherwise. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few articles I can't remember starting or why I started it, but looking in google books [1] it meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accept that their products are widely used--the refs DrB now added are just some of what is available. I'd be willing to withdraw the afd. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully expand it but most of it is computer jargon to me and one of the subjects I detest the most. But that and Scottish Equity Partners are definitely notable and meet GNG. SEP at present looks like possible COI and needs a great overhaul, but deletion isn't the solution for either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a bit of content. The article could use work. Since the article was started the company became a subsidiary of Interconnect Systems Inc. It would probably be better to move this article to a section of an article on the parent. The article could use dates throughout to clearly distinguish past products etc. from present. Maybe some brave editor could convert the hype into simpler descriptions of product functionality and differentiation. But those are quality concerns. After wading through the press releases there are still easily enough independent sources to remove any question about notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable to move it to Interconnect Systems and evolve into a section on the larger company? That might be more likely to survive. I did notice that although there is no article yet here, there are a bunch of companies with similar names. The relevant one seems this one ? The article does indeed use jargon like "microchip" which should be integrated circuit and repeats a few things, so if cleaned up would be even tinier. W Nowicki (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three questions. Is Nallatech notable, in the sense that a number of independent sources have taken note of the company? Should the article be improved? Should it be moved to a larger article on the parent company? The immediate question is whether Nallatech is notable. After that has been agreed and this discussion closed, clean-up and move can and should proceed. I would not see a need for the formality of a requested move. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, I suspect that more readers would vaguely recognize the term "microchip" than would recognize "integrated circuit" (or "micro-integrated circuitry" as people of my generation prefer to style it). Few readers would be able to explain what either was, and very few would be able to explain the difference. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, off topic. The advantage of using technically correct terms with a wikilink, is that those typical readers who do only vaguely recognize the term could click on integrated circuit and read that article to determine if it is what they think. I would also claim that if you asked a random read to buy some "chips" that it would be very unlikely they would get their product from Nallatech :-) in fact, here in Silicon Valley one would get something different than, say, the UK. That is why chip is a disambiguation page. I know the "proscriptive vs descriptive" debate, but we should use precise terminology as much as possible and avoid such ambiguity. Along the similar lines, saying it sells solutions is horribly misleading - follow that link. Anyway, as above I would vote to keep and move. I did a few minor fixes already but plenty of other work to do in case you toss it. W Nowicki (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some think of a microchip as a potato serving at the sort of restaurant that sells dietary solutions, but most think of it as one of those computer things thing in their credit card or phone.

CPU... Keep and move works for me. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - EE Times and EDN articles establish notability. ~KvnG 21:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Lafranchise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low minor league hockey player that fails

WP:NHOCKEY, however that SNG only presumes notability on the basis of meeting an arbitrary statistical target. It does not guarantee notability, and there isn't really anything beyond routine coverage. There is a reprinting of a team release announcing he signed a new contract a couple days ago and his "winning" a competition for having the goofiest name, but nothing non-trivial. Reso lute 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kane Lafranchise is a current professional ice hockey player who passes NHOCKEY having played 170+ professional games, and he will play more this comming season. Outreels (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have already explained why passing NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability in this case. Se also
  WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria for the sports notability guideline, which an athlete also has to pass for NHOCKEY to even apply. Would you care to address that aspect of the problem? Reso lute 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - Between playing over 170 games in the AHL and ECHL and a three-year college career with Alaska-Anchorage, Lafranchise easily meets NHOCKEY. (Note: I am disinterested in any "commentary" on my vote. I have stated why I believe the article should be kept. Let it be.) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –
general notability guideline for notability on Wikipedia. Hey mid (contribs) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - He's going into his fourth season of professional hockey. He specifically meets criteria #3 by playing more than 100 games in the fully professional minor leagues (AHL and ECHL). You might as well just throw out
NSPORTS was created by a consensus of editors and, per that consensus, this article must be kept unless you are able to demonstrability prove that sufficient sources do not exist. In this case, the rebuttal of the presumption of notability has not been met. Dolovis (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You've been around far too long to seriously expect anyone to buy such a silly argument, Dolovis. You are well aware that the burden of proof is yours, and you have to demonstratibly prove that sources do exist. And since you agree that NSPORTS is applicable, then please demonstrate, per NSPORTS, that Lafranchise has been the
subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. And keep in mind that NHOCKEY only establishes the presumption of notability. I am challenging that presumption. By all means, show me the sources that establish notability. Reso lute 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually,
WP:NSPORTS states (and I quote): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and that standard has been met within the article. Dolovis (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

So you're admitting that you cannot find non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then? Reso lute 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The very FIRST page of G-News -- not standard hit, Google News -- returns comes up with substantive articles from the Anchorage Daily News. Toss in the notoriety from that Hockey News poll for Best Hockey Name that Lafranchise won, and I'd say that there's no reason to overturn NHOCKEY just because Resolute feels that minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable. Ravenswing 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect you will support your statement that I feel "minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable" or retract it, Ravenswing. Disagree with me all you want, but be honest about it. I disagree that minor league players who lack non-trivial coverage from multiple sources should be considered notable. And Lafranchise didn't "win" anything. His name was highlighted for being goofy. That's hardly an establishment of notability. Nor is it a source that is substantively about the player. And yes, I saw the links on Google News. Unlike others, I research before nominating or creating pages. Everything there is routine coverage. Resolute 00:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be this proposal of yours, just last month, in which you advocated removing all presumptive notability criteria for all levels of minor leaguers. [2] Ravenswing 19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, and I explicitly argued to determine notability on a case by case basis. That is a very far cry from arguing that "minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable". Many are, but many are not. Reso lute 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Couture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low minor league hockey player that fails

WP:NHOCKEY, however that SNG only presumes notability on the basis of meeting an arbitrary statistical target. It does not guarantee notability, and there isn't really anything beyond routine game coverage. Reso lute 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Derek Couture is a current professional ice hockey player who passes NHOCKEY having played more than 500 games in the ECHL and AHL, with more play expected in the comming season. Outreels (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have already explained why passing NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability in this case. Se also
  WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria for the sports notability guideline, which an athlete also has to pass for NHOCKEY to even apply. Would you care to address that aspect of the problem? Reso lute 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - Having played over 500 games in the AHL and ECHL, combined with a short stint in the top-level Austrian league as well as a four-year junior career in the WHL, Couture meets NHOCKEY by leaps and bounds. (Note: I am disinterested in any "commentary" on my vote. I have stated why I believe the article should be kept. Let it be.) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 17:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –
general notability guideline for notability on Wikipedia. Hey mid (contribs) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - He's played eight seasons of professional hockey in the AHL, ECHL, and has even played in the Austrian Hockey League! You might as well just throw out
NSPORTS was created by a consensus of editors and, per that consensus, this article must be kept unless you are able to demonstrability prove that sufficient sources do not exist. In this case, the rebuttal of the presumption of notability has not been met. Dolovis (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You've been around far too long to seriously expect anyone to buy such a silly argument, Dolovis. You are well aware that the burden of proof is yours, and you have to demonstratibly prove that sources do exist. And since you agree that NSPORTS is applicable, then please demonstrate, per NSPORTS, that Couture has been the
subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. And keep in mind that NHOCKEY only establishes the presumption of notability. I am challenging that presumption. Reso lute 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually,
WP:NSPORTS states (and I quote): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and that standard has been met within the article. Dolovis (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: All the GNG requires are two or more reliable sources discussing the subject. We have this interview from the Seattle Intelligencer [3], and this one from the Worcester Telegram-Gazette [4], and they keep piling on. Honestly, Resolute, with this string of minor-league AfDs, it appears that you're trying to do through the deletion process what you failed at doing at WP:NSPORTS: change the criteria of NHOCKEY to suit your prejudices. Ravenswing 23:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "string", you mean two, then sure. I actually came across several of Dolovis' creations while cleaning up after the Houston Aeros move that were little better, not maintained and often out of date, but only nominated these two as the most significant failures of GNG. As to your two links, I did see them. The former might be okay (shock of shocks, Dolovis never used it when starting that page), but the latter is not about Couture. That's more of a trivial mention as part of a larger story. In my view, this player lacks multiple, non-trivial sources so as to pass GNG. Reso lute 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Meikleham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; this article is about a minor player who fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as meeting
WP:NFOOTBALL, even though that bar is set ridiculously low) but propose deletion as a potential biography of a living person without references. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Your removal of the PROD, and subsequent comments both here and at BLPN indicates that you are
disrupting Wikipedia to try and make a point. Ignoring the fact, of course, that there is no real claim to notability here, let alone a verified one. Giant Snowman 19:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not being disruptive. I am not leaving insulting instructions that "editing priviledges" will be "revoked" because of my supposed incompetence. I am not starting AFD debate on an individual who clearly meets the guidelines. I am not removing tags in violation of
WP:BLP. I am trying to resolve this correctly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You have just said "keep as notable but delete as unreferenced" which is a contradiction.
How can it be notable if it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Giant Snowman 19:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Notability not established with reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the guidelines, he's notable. It's not my fault the guidelines are daft. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could this be a possible hoax? No news hits and no book hits, and I don't see any non-false-positive Google hits either. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor Trescott: - I think the creation is good-faith; I just think the subject is so non-notable that there is simply nothing out there about them. With such a minor sportsman from 80 years ago it is to be expected. Giant Snowman 10:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We cannot apply the standards of today's sport on notability to the inter-war years, when players' salaries were not bloated by TV money. He played for clubs in the senior leagues. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is not based on policy in the slightest, and playing in the lower divisions of the Scottish league now does not even confer notability. Please review
WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 15:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No indication of notability, nor even of the years he played for Raith, which from the club article seem like they were pretty lean. Although not necessary for an individual article, for a player of that time I would expect a mention in the club article. Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets NFOOTBALL. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this article will satisfy the GNG. I can't think of a reason to presume notability for a footballer that played roughly one season in a lower-tier league. Jogurney (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NFOOTBALL collectively Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill K. McNulty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion A7 was declined in March with a suggestion to send to AfD. Article has not been significantly improved since. Subject did not reach the level of state or provincial legislature, only news coverage is to announce her candidature for election, therefore fails

WP:GNG notability criteria (I can only presume that her position as circuit judge prior to 1990 was for one of Illinois' county circuits). Sionk (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the three sources presented, one simply drops the subject's name, one lacks a link so that it might be reviewed, and one is simply the subject's three-sentence CV-like entry on the state's website. Fails the GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I have no idea what the prod decliner was thinking. Ravenswing 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edited to change from delete in case anyone did not understand based on the following that I was being sardonic when I orinally said delete) On my further research I have found that researchers on the internet searching for information on this prominent jurist can already find her biographies in both the Wiki
Judgepedia and at http://www.state.il.us/court/AppellateCourt/Judges/Bio_McNulty.asp, the official web site of the Illinois state courts. It is therefore not critical that information on this jurist, even, if more thorough and informative than in the other biographies, is also included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I do think, though, that what is being missed here is that Ms. McNulty sat, in one of the most populous states in the union, on an appellate court, which tribunals make decisions that have the effect of law in their jurisdiction, and that she, herself, was involved in rendering such legal opinions, some of which are cited in the Wikipedia article on Jill McNulty that is now up for deletion. You would think that if some members of the Wiki community had problems with that article's sourcing, they would work and research to fix the problem, but I suppose it is simpler and certainly less work to just delete the article. We are also in a period of time when the accomplishments of career women as opposed to career men are still diminished. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if this were a former male state appellate jurist, having sat just below a state Supreme Court position and who therefore is in front running for potential of becoming a state Supreme Court appointee. I will research the matter in Wikipedia. It is also inane to say that such office is not at least the equivalent of a lower house state legislative office, whose office holders by definition would be "notable" enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Albiet (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply
]

Here is a brief list of Wikipedia articles on persons who last held a seat on the Illinois state appellate court before being appointed sometime thereafter to the

U.S. Senate

. What could I have possibly been thinking in creating a Wikipedia article on the holder of such a insignificant office, especially, a holder who had, as noted in such ridiculous article, been part of announcing legal precedent setting opinions from that bench?!!!

Sue E. Myerscough
Sharon Coleman
Charles H. Davis
Nicholas John Bua
Judy Koehler
Anne M. Burke
Richard Henry Mills

Albiet (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

- I'm not entirely sure whether or not you're being sarcastic here, but I suppose I'll have to take what you say at face value. There was no sexism involved here. I could see no evidence McNulty had been widely written about and there seems to be little evidence she reached a high enough office to get a free pass over Wikipedia's relevant notability criteria. If you've got an example of anything that comments on her success as a woman in a man's world, by all means put it forward. As you know, you've been creating several McNulty articles and not all of them are suitable for a general encyclopedia (though I'm sure of interest to someone studying the surname). Sionk (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Notability (persons)

1) Basic Notability: “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

2) Pollticians: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in."

JILL K. MCNULTY, State Appellate Court Justice whose rulings have precedent setting effect statewide:

1) In multiple published reliable secondary sources:

a) Biography independently in Wiki

Judgepedia

b) Biography independently at Official site of Illinois State Courts

c) Multiple Feature Articles about Jill K. McNulty appear in the Chicago Tribune newspaper

d) One of only 8 named potential

Illinois Supreme Court nominees that the 36,000 member Illinois State Bar Association

evaluated to be qualified for that position. [5] Chicago Tribune 3/6/1992

2) Very influential in her profession:

a) multiple of her opinions published for legal practitioners, lower courts and other jurists as binding or persuasive authority statewide in the Illinois Reports and nationally in West’s North Eastern Reporter

b) Some of her opinions of such significance to legal practice that they are discussed in publications for legal professionals like The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin newspaper

3) Could potentially in future be appointed too or run for other high public office

DID I PUT ENOUGH FORWARD?

No. Obviously does not meet

Wikipedia:Notability (persons) criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lets get her out. Are you now sure whether I'm being sarcastic? Albiet (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply

]

**Article Jill K. McNulty has now been edited and condensed, while subject and her notability have been elaborated and more copiously sourced. Maybe worth a second look. Albiet (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Caffeyw (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Retain Two participants in this debate say that the article on Jill K. McNulty should be deleted. They argue the article fails Wikipedia notability guidelines, but neither specifies how the article fails to meet these guidelines. The one debater clearly being sarcastic and rude does anyway specify how Jill K. McNulty meets notability. I have just read the article and it is marginal. On my read it does meet basic Wikipedia notability guidelines for persons. The subject has significant regional media coverage in national newspapers, was a candidate for a state supreme court seat and full biographies on her are published by independent internet and print sources and a judge-mcnulty.blogspot.com. demonstrates public interest. Hope my input helps. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Trying to be Helpful![reply]

Update The following has been edited into the Jill K. McNulty stub article:

[McNulty, whose first judicial appointments were to juvenile and family court divisions, was prior from 1971-1982 a professor of law at the

Chicago Kent College of Law

and a nationally recognized researcher and scholar in the field of juvenile law. She was published on issues of juvenile law multiple times in multiple scholarly legal journals and cited to in prestigious legal texts on issue. Among the articles that Jill K. McNulty has authored in peer review journals are Jill K. McNulty “First Amendment versus Sixth Amendment A Constitutional Battle in the Juvenile Courts” New Mexico Law Review Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer 1980) pp. 311-340, Jill K. McNulty and William S. White “The Juvenile Right to Treatment: Panacea or Pandora’s Box” 16 Santa Clara Law Review 745 (1976) and Jill K. McNulty “The Right to Be Left Alone” American Criminal Law Review Vol. 11 (1972) pp. 1-25.

McNulty's writings are cited in very prestigious legal texts but have also had influence outside the legal field on broader social policy debate. Jill K. McNulty’s scholarly research on proposed limits of juvenile courts jurisdiction published in Jill K. McNulty "The right to be Left Alone" American Criminal Law Review Vol. 11 (1972) pp. 1-25 at 25 is cited to at page 210 of Donald L. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy published by the

ISBN 0815707312

, 9780815707318. She is also cited in the research journals of fields as diverse as Mary K. Zimmerman & David B. Chein “Decision Making in the Juvenile Court” Social Work Research and Abstracts Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 14-21 (1981).]

Not meaning to seem "rude", but I thought that the idea of creating a Wikipedia Stub article on a subject is that other editors will contribute supplement to it, so it can eventually become an informative source for Wikipedia users, instead, of just attacking its early short comings. Albiet (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet my last comment on issue[reply]

Keep. Intermediate-level appellate judges seem to be considered notable. All of Wisconsin's current appellate judges have articles, including some which only cite Wisconsin's court website. If McNulty's legal contributions are "enduring" and important to her field,
talk) (contribs) 02:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That sounds very like
WP:POLITICIAN is changed. From my vague understanding of the legal system, all legal judgements contribute towards the body of case law, therefore will have an enduring legacy in some capacity. The fact one of her papers has been cited in two research journals is questionable proof of her "influence outside the legal field on broader social policy debate" (Albeit's words). Sionk (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) (contribs) 06:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

again, Keep: I stated earlier that I was through commenting on the issue of this article's possible deletion, but, in light of the above exchange between Theodore and Sionk, which exchange clearly demonstrates that Sionk did not even clearly understand the nature of a state appellate court seat before nominating this article for deletion, I am compelled to reenter the debate on behalf of Wikipedia users with 2 pieces of additional information, which I believe shall inform the debate participants in possibly unknown essentials and thereby greatly aid the debate.

- 1) As Theodore pointed out, the intermediate appellate court is a court of errors that sits between a state’s trial court and its Supreme Court. In most states, except to my knowledge in Nevada, it is the only court which must hear the appeal of a litigant, who is dissatisfied with a trial court’s decision. The intermediate appellate courts usually publish written opinions which are hard bound in reporters and archived for the legal community in law libraries and today on line on LEXUS. These published opinions are binding authority and must be followed by all trial or lower courts in the state. A state Supreme Court alternatively hears a petitioner’s appeal of one of these intermediate appellate court's decisions at the Supreme Court's discretion by a grant of Certiorari. It does not have to hear such an appeal and, usually, does not unless an issue of extreme legal importance is involved, and, even then, if the Supreme Court agrees with the intermediate appellate court’s decision, it may not hear the case anyway and may simply let the appellate court's decision stand as state case law in the interest of the Supreme Court’s judicial economy. No appellant has a right to a hearing before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, most of a state’s binding case law is announced by the intermediate appellate courts. As can be seen, they are extremely important bodies in our society. Trial court opinions are not precedent, except, in some states, where district or superior courts are permitted to hear appeals from muni or justice court decisions and, then, the appeal's decision is only binding on those muni/justice courts in the district.

- 2) With the latest inclusions Jill K. McNulty meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Criteria (1) anyway. Her academic work in the area of the limits of juvenile court jurisdiction and a juvenile offender’s right to psychotherapeutic treatment is a contribution to an important area of national debate in the field of criminology. Prof./Judge McNulty’s scholarly work in the area is also not just published in prestigious legal journals and cited by as Sionk puts it “cited in two research journals”. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy is a text book published by the Brookings Institution, one of the most prestigious think tanks in the nation. I'm sure that there are many more citations to McNulty's work. These cites were just readily accessible to me for example. Hope the above clarifications aid the debate. Albiet (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Update

The following lead in and Bibliography sections have been added to Jill K. McNulty:

Lead in ...

"Jill K. McNulty was born in Peoria, Illinois. She was a professor of law for 10 years and, thereafter, for 30 years a jurist, who retired from a seat on the Illinois intermediate state appellate court, but who had been a prominent candidate for a seat on the

U.S. Congress

on federal juvenile offender legislation of the period.[2]"

"Partial Bibliography to citations ...

This is a small, bibliography sampling of the dozens upon dozens of texts and journal articles in the U.S. in which during the later part of the 20th century one or more of Jill K. McNulty’s research publications on juvenile law issues are cited at least once.

1. J. Olson & G. Sheppard (program managers-operations) Intake Screening Guides – Improving Justice for Juveniles Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Human Development, Office of Youth Development Washington, D.C. 20201 (February, 1975) p. 30

2. J. Hall, B. Baker, J. Foster, J. Pillota, K. Welland and J. Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training: The Out of state Placement of Children: A Search for Rights, Boundaries, Services Academy for Contemporary Problems^[1] Columbus, Ohio 1982, report prepared under grant no. 78 JN AX 0038, Printed in U.S., Library of Congress Catalogue No. 8167952; Publically available, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent, National Institutes of Justice for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent, National Institutes of Justice United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20531 6-3-83

3. Donald L. Horowitz The Courts and Social Policy

ISBN 0815707312

, 9780815707318

4. V. L. Streib Juvenile Justice in America Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press (1978)

5. Beyond Control – Status Offenders in the Juvenile Court L. E. Teitelbaum & A. R, Gough, eds., Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. (1977)

6. S. Sonsteng, R. Scott and D. Niles Juvenile Law and Practice St. Paul: West Publishing Company (1985) Vol. 12

7. Stanley Z. Fisher “Families with Service Needs: The Newest Euphemism” 18 J. Fam. L. 1 (1979-1980)

8. Daniell R. Odo, Article 5, “Removing Confidentiality Protections and the ‘Get Tough’ Rhetoric: What Has Gone Wrong With The Juvenile Justice System?”, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Volume 18, Issue 1, 1/1/98 (cite as 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 105, 1998) p. 120

9. A. Breed & P. Voss “Procedural Due Process in the Discipline of Incarcerated Juveniles” 5 Pepp. L. Rev. 641 (1977-1978)

10. Mary K. Zimmerman & David B. Chein “Decision Making in the Juvenile Court” Social Work Research and Abstracts Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 14-21 (1981)

11. Stephen Jonas “Press Access to the Juvenile Courtroom: Juvenile Anonymity and the First Amendment” 17 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 287 (1981-1983)

12. D. Mark McIntyre “Juvenile Court Proceedings: The Conflict between Juvenile Anonymity and Freedom of the Press” 23 S. Tex. L.J. 383 (1982)

13. Susan Cohn “Protecting Child Rape Victims From the Public and Press After Globe Newspaper and Cox Broadcasting” 51 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 269 (1982-1983)

14. Michael T. Nolan “Public Hearings in the Juvenile Court: California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 676 as Amended by Assembly Bill No. 1374” 4 Crim. Just. J. 497 (1980-1981)

15. Lynne G. Masters “Constitutioinal Law - The Horns of a Dilemma: Prior Restraint or Access to Juvenile Courtrooms” 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 328 (1983)

16. Elizabeth L. Pike “State Ex Rel. Oregonian Publishing Co. V. Diez: An End to Soft-Hearted Mollycoddling” 17 Willamette L. Rev. 719 (1980-1981)

17. Y. Merker & L. Rosenberg “Legacy of the Stubborn and Rebellious Son” 74 Mich. L. Rev. 1097 (1975-1976)" Albiet (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Added to "Lead in" for Jill K. McNulty "Her work has influenced the enactment of juvenile offender legislation in states as far flung from her's as California."^[2] Albiet (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet, minor fix inadvertent link brackets Albiet (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional regardless of notability. This is the campaign season, and we need to beware of campaign biographies--the more elaborate, (and the more elaborately argued) the more dubious. She might possibly be notable as an academic, if there's a verifiable reliable reference to being a full-time full professor -- "a professor" when used outside a formal academic CV, can mean almost anything, including an part-time adjunct assistant professor. As for the citations to her work, essentially every published academic and every judge at this level has them. At the academic level, Google Scholar shows her only 3 cited articles as 21, 15, 10 with another 10 for citations of a legal opinion. This is not notable in any subject We have never considered state judges below the Supreme court as intrinsically notable: the list given of articles we have keep consist of those judges at her level who have gotten seats in the Illinois Supreme Court, and do not justify the inclusion of someone who has not yet obtained one. If kept, or if reinstated if she wins the position, the article will need very substantial trimming. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This article clearly does not even remotely risk promotion of a political candidacy of Jill K. McNulty and such suggestion is ludicrous on the evidence and specious attempt to justify a deletion that is clearly just not justified.There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that McNulty is running for any political office. This woman, who was born in 1935, graduated J.D. from Northwestern and was admitted to the bar in 1960, is now 78 years old! This trail blazing female attorney was the first female associate in history ever hired at Chicago’s staid Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe law firm, working there from 1960 – 1964 (http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf Official Illinois State website as to 2 preceding sentences) which I shall hereafter note in her article. All evidence is that McNulty is retired after an extraordinarily accomplished 40 year career. Her Wikipedia article also did not first appear during any campaign or campaign season. Again, to suggest that the article is or could become a campaign advertisement is ludicrous.
- Article sources already confirm that Jill K. McNulty was full time (not part time) faculty at the Chicago Kent College of Law and a nationally recognized legal scholar. If you had bothered to review the article sources before commenting, you would know this. McNulty is noted to already be an Associate Professor at Chicago Kent Law as early as 1976 (Vol. 16 Santa Clara Law Review No. 4, p. 745, Article 2, “Juvenile Right to Treatment: Panacea or Pandora’s Box” at p. 745, footnote *). Also, academics, who are part time faculty at a University, are noted as such in contemporaneous faculty profiles being there designated as "adjunct faculty". Jill K. McNulty, who left a full tenured professor, is not. Finally, every mundane university professor does not have over 50 journal and text citations to their works and, additional, citation of their works during U.S. Congressional and California Legislature proceedings on proposed legislative enactments. You even admit in comment that McNulty is a noted academic and scholar. The fact that you have to rely on the canard of this articles being "promotional" speaks volumes of its subjects notability.
- Still yet another, objective, independent source containing a biography of Jill K. McNulty, in addition to those already noted, is the Illinois Blue Book, p 170, (http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/bb/id/40600), just because you do not consider an intermediate appellate court, which produces the bulk of a state’s case law and interprets its statute law as important as the legislature that produces its statute law (and I don't know why), this does not detract from Jill K. McNulty’s general notability otherwise.

- Are we now to delete articles based on rampant speculation? At this point, I cannot even remotely understand the vicious resistance by many to inclusion in the Wikipedia of this, in multiple Wikipedia categories, clearly notable and trail blazing women attorney, jurist, scholar and elder of the woman's movement. I can count at least 100 less notable individuals whose biographies I have encountered and, justifiably, in the Wikipedia in just the last month! I shall list them if anyone requests. Why such vicious resistance to so notable and accomplished a women?! What is going on here!!! Albiet (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

- 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) concedes anyway that “She (Jill K. McNulty) might possibly be notable as an academic, if there's a verifiable reliable reference to being a full-time full professor.” As McNulty’s tenure as a full time law professor is established, then, lets look at the following. How does Jill K. McNulty compare as a legal scholar to some other subjects of Wikipedia articles, who are categorized as “legal scholars”? How does the content and sourcing of her article compare to theirs?
- Since at least 2006, there has existed a Wikipedia article on subject
  K.A. Taipale
  , who is categorized as a “legal scholar”. His field of legal specialty is law and technology. A Google Scholar search turns up 26 works, yet it shows his 26 articles have been cited by other legal scholars just 236 times.
- An article in Wikipedia on subject Mohammed Fadel, categorized as a “legal scholar”, has existed in Wikipedia since April of this year. His field of specialty is law and economics of Islamic law, a department which he chairs. The Wikipedia article consists of a single sentence and references as its sole source the law faculty profile website at the University of Toronto. A Google Scholar search picks up 50 law related works written by an M. Fadel, but these works have only been cited by other scholars 205 times.
- Google turns up just 3 articles for Jill K. McNulty in her specialty of juvenile law, but these 3 articles have been cited 46 times by other scholars. It appears that each of McNulty’s articles is having on average a significantly greater impact on the scholarly community in her field and society at large than either Mr. Taipale’s or Fadel’s are having upon the scholarly community in their fields. And how reliable is Google Scholar at hitting all of a scholars works anyway? Consider the case of the late Harvard legal scholar Elizabeth A. Owens (1919-1998).
- There has been a stub article on subject Elizabeth Owens in Wikipedia since 2010. She is categorized as a “legal scholar”. The article contains no information except her dates of birth and death (1919-1998) and a sentence stating that she was a "legal scholar". The article cites to a single online biographical reference American National Biography, which requires a subscription. A Google Scholar search produces no legal scholarly works for an Elizabeth Owen at all. Yet, before everybody jumps on the wagon with their shears to delete her rather than developing this stub, they might want to read this on Elizabeth A. Owen (1919-1998) from Harvard University, http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/backissues/spring99/article6.html “Two Path Breaking Scholars Remembered”. Albiet (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Delete, 'vote' as nominator (the author has expended thousands of words explaining their 'keep' vote so I think I need to make my position quite clear). Article fails the current Wikipedia
WP:GNG criteria. Since the AfD nomination, the article has been expanded greatly, unfortunately without any reliable proof of the increasingly exaggerated claims. Though McNulty worked as an acadmeic, I still fail to see any reliable secondary proof (other than Albiet
's claims) that McNulty was an exceptionally important one (academics, by their job description, write academic books and papers and this doesn't make them notable per se).

I seriously doubt there is any promotion here by McNulty herself. The promotion here is by Albeit and their project to write about people with the McNulty surname. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Sionk Are we now reduced to the logical flaw of ad hominem arguments. Let’s instead try to concentrate on discussing the merits of the debate here. Following my “thousands of words” arguing against the article as a promotion, you concede that the article is not “promotional”. I apparently did not entirely waste my time, as otherwise, there exists no consensus here. Varying editors have in good faith argued near equally both for retention and for deletion of the article. The article must have some at least arguable merit. Why attempt to make this personal?
- I have no personal interest in the MacNulty per se at all. One of my scholarly interests is the ancient Irish
  McKinley (surname) and others, also, their descended. Other articles I have written on MacNulty have been most on historical figures indisputably notable under Wikipedia guidelines and thereto conspicuously absent from Wikipedia, Arthur MacNalty, William A. McNulty, William K. MacNulty, Richard R. McNulty and etc. Some of these articles on historic McNulty, like Caleb J. McNulty
  , have not been flattering of them at all. I write and edit articles on other subjects not related to the Ulaidh too.

I can only suggest if you do not want any personal comments, you abide by these rules too. I'm trying to engage in a rational debate about the Jill K. McNulty article and its content. If you wish to discuss your other articles, or my edits to other articles, please do so at the appropriate places (not here).

As for the reliable sources, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It is one thing to
WP:ACADEMIC. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Is this the "rational debate about the
WP:ACADEMIC. I "abide" by your "rules" or most experienced lead. The sources cited in the Jill K. McNulty article are to sources containing biographical detail and, also, sources such as her announcement of major opinions that are now an "enduring" part of the the ever evolving Illinois case law and her scholarly writings and their citation, which have effected enactment of legislation at both the federal and state level and that, thereby, demonstrate a second "enduring" body of McNulty's work in the legal field. That is how these materials, which apparently seem unrelated to you, actually, connect to support McNulty's "general notability". I am not the one who is having "a basic misunderstanding" here. Albiet (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply
]

Keep -
anti-feminist bias in Wikipedia debates on retention of articles on female subjects (85% of Wiki editors allegedly male). We researched through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and found this deletion discussion where the creator hints at an anti-feminist bias. The creator also says that the nomination for deletion is because of a personal issue of the nominator with him and not on merit of the Jill K. McNulty article. I just opened my user account so from hereon out I can regularly participate in deletion discussions of exactly this type. I must agree with the article creator on all counts. I don't know what we're bothering to discuss anymore. Enduring contributions to Illinois case law – Enduring contributions to literature in field of juvenile law - Enduring influence in scholarly and legislative debate on juvenile law – “Broke Glass Ceiling” 53 years ago in 1960 becoming first female associate at Ross McGowan, at one time a major, top tier Chicago law firm, one of whose partners from the early 1950s was Carl E. McGowan - Awarded the Illinois Judicial Council Chairperson’s Award in 1988. Persons are not automatically notable because they are state appellate justices. Persons who have made enduring contributions to the law are not “not” notable because they are state appellate justices. Promotional - give me a break. This woman doesn’t need any promotion. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply
]

If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place. As my nomination makes clear, an independent administrator suggested this article be taken to AfD. So please stop these accusations of sexism or personal vendettas please. Sionk (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, the Jill K. McNulty article reads “An elder of the women's movement, McNulty was the first female associate in history ever hired at Chicago’s staid Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe law firm, working there from 1960 – 1964.[1]" The source for Tammytoons’ comment about braking a “glass ceiling” then seems to be this reference[1] of the Jill K. McNulty article, which is http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” I’m glad that somebody actually reads the article and its sources before commenting. Since I assume you are a person of your word, and you stated “If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place.”, I am anxiously, then, awaiting your now changing your “Delete” “vote” to a “Keep” “vote” (your words, I presume). Oh, and the administrator only “rmv speedy” deletion (their edit note), while stating that the article’s removal would “merit” an Afd , they did not suggest that it be nominated or, themselves, make the nomination. You did this all by yourself without tell of anyone’s encouragement or prompting. Don't try to associate the administrator with your actions. Albiet (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

"Merits an AfD" means what it says, as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly does. Lets parse it. In Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary at page 777 and as employed in its verb tense by the administrator, "merit" has 2 meanings. Both of which clearly only support my interpretation and not yours. One is noted obsolete or "a kind or style no longer current: OLD FASHIONED". The verb tense definitions of merit are "1: obs. to be entitled to reward or honor" and "2:DESERVE" (The verb "deserve" is, itself, defined at Merriam Webster page 337 with usage examples and in full definitions "vb deserved; deserving [etymology and bold omitted] vt (13c) to be worthy of: MERIT (~s another chance) ~ vt: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital (have become recognized as they ~ - T. S. Eliot) - deserver n". A total 3 definitions are provided for "worthy" at page 1445 "1 a: having worth or value ... b: HONORABLE, MERITORIOUS ... 2: having sufficient worth or importance.). In its noun sense even, "merit 1: c a praise worthy quality: VIRTUE ... d: character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem, also: ACHIEVEMENT ... 3: b individual significance or justification ("2:" is not usage. "3: a" is not usage. "1: a" is not usage and noted as an obsolete definition. Only one definition, "1: b the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one's deserts", even in the improper noun sense is ambiguous and might be interpreted either way to support my or your interpretation. (Even improper noun definition concensus is 4 possible for my interpretation and 0.5 possible for your interpretation from 4. Proper verb tense is 2 for my interpretation and 0 for yours out of 2. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to keep your word "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had 'broke glass ceiling' ... then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) Albiet (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

August 27, 2013 Another Day, Still Waiting Sionk: "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” Albiet (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

August 28, 2013 Yet, Another Day and Still Waiting, Sionk: "If I saw even one source hinting that Jill McNulty had "broke glass ceiling" (your words, I presume) then I wouldn't nominate the article in the first place." (your words, I presume) http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/jud_conf/AnnualReport/2008/Retired08.pdf, a portion of the official annual report of the Illinois Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, which at its page 56 states “Judge McNulty was the first female associate at Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, working there from 1960 - 1964.” Yep, nomination only has to do with Jill K. McNulty and not the nominator's disapproval of other of the work of the article's creator in the Wikipedia and, certainly, Jill K. McNulty's being a career woman doesn't factor in, even, subconsciously. All human behavior is always perfectly rational and emotion free. Albiet (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]
So what exactly are you waiting for? The nomination has already occurred, and there's too much discussion now to just abandon it. I highly suggest you stop hounding people involved in this discussion. It makes it look like you have a bit too much as stake here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the AfD was opened 3 weeks ago. As for the fact McNulty was the first female associate of the law firm, Ross, McGowan, Hardies & O'Keefe, well, it tells us very little. The claim she was "an elder of the women's movement" and her employers were "staid" are the claims of Albeit, not the source. The claim she "broke the glass ceiling" in a "major, top tier Chicago law firm" is IP 64's and, again, editorializing. Sure, McNulty has had a long and successful career, but doesn't meet Wikipedia's broad notability guidelines. I'm content for the AfD to run its course. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia has certainly permitted a very, very full airing of all sides of this Afd discussion, whatever the outcome. In for once, briefly, summarizing my perspective on those arguments and without being caustic, an appointment to the Illinois State Appellate Court isn’t worth encyclopedic mention, itself. Its judges’ issuing legal opinions that are binding on state’s trial courts can make an enduring contribution to Illinois state law. This is more likely if a judge repeatedly issues opinions over a long period of time. Jill K. McNulty sat on the Illinois Appellate Court for a long 3 decades. Joseph Burke in our encyclopedia never held any office higher than Illinois Appellate Court Judge and is notable only for his long office. While I myself only know of some cases and have not fully researched the legal reporters, both Burke & McNulty are notable for making an enduring contribution to Illinois law. Jill K. McNulty is certainly an excellent role model for young woman and should be published for them by this article's retention. THIS IS THE VERY IMPORTANT STAKE THAT I HAVE IN THE DEBATE HERE. I also think that people should live by their word. Thank you all. Albiet (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

So your primary reason for keeping this article has nothing to do with previously established notability? Sorry, but
Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which you can promote your causes, nor is Wikipedia to be used to establish notability. None of the references establish the notability of her length of service or of her contributions on the bench. My suggestion is to Delete this article until such time as notability is established. As far as the article for Joseph Burke (judge) is concerned, I don't immediately see why it exists either, but whether or not he is notable is of no consequence in this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. McNulty failed to cross the threshold of notability several times in her career. She failed to get elected, she failed to gain a seat on a higher court, she failed to write a bestseller, and she failed to become famous or even notorious in the media. In looking for books on McNulty, all I found were brief biographical listings in Sullivan's Judicial Profiles and the Illinois Blue Book—these have a lower standard than Wikipedia and list every minor judge. In looking for news items, I found nothing with substantial coverage of McNulty's life and career. The closest I got was a Chicago Times story from 1988 which said McNulty was "not qualified for retention" as a judge in Cook County because she "exercised poor judgment in response to charges of hustling" clients. Even though this could have boosted McNulty's notability in a negative fashion, the newspaper article did not give more coverage to her than that. Other news items were bare endorsements in lists of political candidates. No in-depth coverage of McNulty. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what is being missed here entirely is the contribution, the enduring contribution, this woman has made to the mandatory legal authority of Illinois case law in 30 years of issueing opinions from an appellate court. Some of these opinions are sited in the article. This is not even discussed by those arguing for deletion nor her scholarly contributions to the enactment of state and federal legislation, also, sited in the article. Also, the fact that I, personally, think that such a notable and accomplished woman should be published as a role model for young woman has logically nothing to do with this notability, just, a response to comment that I was demonstrating an emotional "stake". A fallacious logical argument anyway, like the one "when you argue so strongly this discredits your argument". Of course people have emotional stakes in their activities. This does not mean that they are also not making sound arguments. Now, we are down to republication of unproven allegations without sourcing in baseless ad hominen attacks against a woman, who has never been charged let alone convicted of anything or disciplined as an attorney or judge, but instead given awards by her peers. TYPICAL. What could these possibly have to do with her notability as a person who has made enduring contributions to Illinois law. All of this is very muddy irrational argument. HAS ANYONE EVEN LOOKED AT THE VOLUME OF THIS WOMAN'S PUBLISHED CASE LAW OPINIONS IN THE ILLINOIS REPORTS AND WEST'S NORTHEASTERN REPORTER. ANYWAY, ANYONE CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING NOW. WHEN I RECREATE THIS ARTICLE IMPROVED, I SHALL BE SURE TO HAVE REVIEWED EVERYONE OF THESE APPELLATE DECISIONS AND THE OPINIONS OF EVERY ILLINIOS TRIAL COURT FOLLOWING ANY OF THEM, SO NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY MISS THE POINT. Albiet (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Also, "she 'exercised poor judgment in response to charges of hustling' clients." Come on! Don't you think that this quote inserted in context of your own verbage and without elaborating could cause readers, who might not go to the article, to come to a false impression that Judge McNulty, herself, was "hustling clients"!!!! Its getting to the point where people appear irrationally willing to stoop to anything to delete this woman from Wikipedia! This 25 year old inserted newspaper article, supposed "quote" of the state bar and posed as argument to suggest that Judge McNulty is “notorious” and unsuitable for her own misconduct, is libelously of the subject and otherwise grossly misleading. The Chicago Times article only states that in the opinion of the state bar (its members making a recommendation to voters in a non official capacity), McNulty had not vigorously enough pursued investigation of alleged miscreant lower traffic court judges and recused them during, “failure to pursue an aggressive investigation (of accusations against lower traffic court judges, not her) and by failing to request reassignment of judges who were implicated in such charges." Boy, I wonder how many people could be angry enough to try to file a clearly baseless complaint against a traffic court judge to harass them and disrupt the court system? Sounds political to me and in Chicago, who'd have thought! It is noteworthy that the voters reelected Judge McNulty anyway. Also, when parentheticals like (clients) appear in a quote, you should insert them, because the conveyor of the quote is thereby unequivically signalling that the words in parentheticals are not the words of the source being quoted. Albiet (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Peter Bell

John Peter Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer notability. ambassadors need notable third party coverage which this lacks. also nominating for the same reasons: *Denis Briand *J. Denis Bélisle *Philippe Beaulne LibStar (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reject co-nominations please nominate properly: Discussing multiple articles in one AFDs is usually not a good idea unless they are very closely related, which these aren't. Anyway, per
WP:BEFORE, Beaulne and Bélisle are both in Canadian Who's Who, which is one of the sources you need to check. Let's split them down so that they can be discussed individually. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Non-notable diplomat. Atrian (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
which ones? all of them? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
czar · · 06:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

List separately. unless you want to make the assumption that all Canadian diplomats to countries in Africa are equally non-notable. That's the only common factor. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Relist separately to gain proper consensus. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this can't be counted as a keep vote, no reason is given for keep. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only John Peter Bell is listed now. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the
Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The subject is also notable as a director of Goldcorp [6][7] and others.[8] From doing a quick search, the sourcing seems patchy but there may be profiles, etc. behind paywalls and also his name and a bit of history etc. is likely to have turned up in multiple reliable sources at the time of appointment to various positions. Naturally, many such sources may not be available online, because of the era in which they would have been reported. -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not all ambassadors are considered notable. The multiple positions show that this particular one is considerably above the ordinary, & consequently notable. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his ambassadorial posts, Bell still holds the title of Honorary Consul of the Ivory Coast, he was chief negotiator at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, Chief Federal Negotiator in the British Columbia First Nations treaty process (1999-2006), Protocol Adviser to the Four Host First Nations at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, Doctor of Laws Honoris Causa from UBC, a member of the Board of Directors of Goldcorp and Tahoe Resources[9]. He's also a professor at UBC, a member of the advisory board of Quest University, a recipient of the Panglima Cemilang Bintang Kenyalang award (Malaysia) and the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal.[10]. He was also a party to a notable family law case[11]. Pburka (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Overall consensus after two relistings is for article retention, including the possibility of a merge. Per the "merge/redirect" !votes, the article requires retention in order for a potential merge to occur. Further discussion regarding a merge can occur on an article talk page. Also, the nominator addended the nomination with "Merge and redirect" (at the bottom of the thread), essentially changing their initial delete !vote in the nomination, and sources have been added to the article, so it's no longer an unsourced BLP. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bennett Cohen

David Bennett Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced BLP with no content except for a list of links to other people with articles this person has allegedly performed or recorded with. The article seems to claim that this person is notable based on who they've been claimed to have recorded with, but fails
WP:NMUSIC. Technical 13 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless
WP:RS can be found. So far all I have found do not meet that criterion, but I can be convinced to change my mind. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect to Country Joe and the Fish if that's his best-known musical role. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
czar · · 05:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect as above due to lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the
Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Retain article David Cohen is listed in sideman guitar credits as varied as Mason Williams' "The Mason Williams Phonograph Record," Boz Scaggs' "A Boz Scaggs Anthology" and Anne Murray's "Together" - to name a few - in addition to having been a member of Country Joe & the Fish, Elephants Memory and the Mike Post Coalition. I feel citations on album liners are a valid citation for band membership (when listed as such). While incorporation into a band's article is one solution, it does not adequately address his work as a sideman which, to me at least, is just as important, especially for those of us who conduct research on such topics. Prominence is not the only (or even the best) measure of worthiness for inclusion of a named article. RichMartinez (talk) 19 August 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
due weight be given to the subject's other work/activities. -- Trevj (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as nominator, I think this is the best course of action for this article that doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmere Jenkins

Jarmere Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per talk on Talk:ACC Athlete of the Year, not sure if this meets general notability guidelines. Mainly just Virginia sports stuff. He does not meet Tennis Project guidelines for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies
Jakob _C2 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I had been told that winning the ACC Athlete of the Year award does not grant automatic notability. That's why I nominated it. Are you saying it's automatic for that award? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ^{Jakob _C2 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep
WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Athlete per as a college athlete with a notable award being Player of the Year. Outreels (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those favoring retention of the article primarily focused on the subject's opinion being offered as expert commentary in the online article. Those favoring deletion noted a lack of the indicia of notability that are accepted under the applicable notability guideline. The deletion position is more compliant with existing site policy/guidelines, and the "keep" camp has not shown a nexus between commentary and lasting notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Turnbull (author)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Doug Turnbull (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY Self-published author lacking in significant sales or coverage. Closest to notable coverage listed is the NBC News link, but that's them talking to him about Mars, not talking about him. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reasons why the article should be kept:
Consultation as an expert testimony on an issue in a national news coverage media venue, denotes professional status and subject expertise. The individual is also noted as an educator and radio talk show host in addition to being an author Bides time (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC). In the recorded interview (available online), the author is being interviewed about his science fiction books and the subject matter discussed in them (Mars colonization).Bides time (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author is being interviewed about his science fiction writing as shown in some of these excerpts from the interview. (For the full interview, see Alan Boyle: Curiosity on Mars.
Boyle: "Doug, does a lot of work, as I said, with science fact as well as science fiction, and that is always an interesting intersection for us."
Boyle: "Do you have any more grist for maybe some future science fiction stories from what's been found already? How are your gears turning when you think about what new discoveries of Mars mean for better or more compelling science fiction?"
Turnbull: "Well I try to keep my stories as closely related to the science as it's understood today as possible, and every little fact that they glean is helpful in creating a new story...To have the actual physical samples to tell us whether or not the soil has phosphates in it and things like that, all of which would be critical if you were going to have a settlement on Mars. In fact, that's the theme of most of my stories. Is the soil going to be at all useful for farming, for example. [Must] you have a greenhouse where you have to grow everything hydroponically or can you actually use some of the Martian soil and grow the same sorts of plants that we grow here on Earth? Those are all facts that Curiosity and the folks there at NASA JPL are discovering every day."
Boyle: "That's a good point. That the reality of planetary exploration can trumph the fantasy that we have about what Mars or other planets are like. You know, I'm thinking of the John Carter on Mars stories that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote and these fanciful views of Mars that seem so old fashioned nowadays. It kind of now strains plausibility nowadays to read those stories that they really aren't talking about a real Mars. They are talking about fantastical planets that carry the same name. Do you feel as if as we learn more about other planets that they get more boring as a focus for a work of science fiction?"
Specific habitats and issues are discussed such as the availability of water and sources of habitats such as lava tubes, of which Turbull replies with a similar example from the settings of his stories where colonists live in caves, and why this is important for the health of astronauts and a feasible solution financially.
Boyle: "When you look back at your stories are there things that you are kind of proud of as anticipating what the reality is on Mars or are there things that you wrote that you thought for sure this is the way it is and then it turned out that it was totally wrong?"
Bides time (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this podcast a notable indicator of significance? Does this make him meet
WP:AUTHOR guidelines? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: to me, the sources' high reputation and notability outweigh their limited, but existent, attention to him as an author. Tezero (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do we have indicating his "high reputation and notability"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not his; the sources have them. I'm not slavishly devout to NBC or the Library of Congress, but I generally trust them and so do millions of others. Tezero (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Library of Congress" reference only shows that he registered a copyright, something anyone could do. It is not an indication of any relationship or belief from the LOC beyond that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, and as best as I can tell, that "NBC" interview isn't actually an NBC interview; it's something that someonefroom NBC did off-site, and linked to from the NBC page. I see no sign that Virtually Speaking is an NBC project, and the interview's page at Blog Talk Radio does not mention NBC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am the Producer of Virtually Speaking Science, which has three regular hosts. Alan Boyle is the Science Editor for NBC Digital. His blog is CosmicLog on the NBC site. He participate with the approval of NBC and links to his interviews on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtually-speaking-science. The two sites are linked but not the same entity. See this VSS website: "Virtually Speaking Science Informal conversations hosted by science writers Alan Boyle, Tom Levenson and Jennifer Ouellette, who explore the often-volatile landscape of science, politics and policy, the history and economics of science, science" http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtually-speaking-science. In addition to the source cited in the article (Boyle, Alan. "Relive Curiosity rover's triumphs ... and find out what's next on Mars." NBC News. August 7, 2013. Accessed August 10, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/relive-curiosity-rovers-triumphs-find-out-whats-next-mars-6C10871874), this website explains Boyle's relationship to NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10912485/ns/technology_and_science/t/alan-boyle/#.UgvN3pK1G3E. Again, the sites are linked, but they are different, and that counts as two different external sources for notability. --Sherry Reson (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NBC mention conveys no notability; it is only a passing mention (half a sentence is about Turnbull) in the form of an event listing. This gets discussed (in the context of musicians) at
WP:BAND on the things that don't count: "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether or not you agree with her reasons, her vote still counts.Bides time (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that we have a number of editors here with apparently limited Wikipedia editing experience or limited AFD-involvement expeerience. I encouraged them to review
WP:AFDEQ, where they will find (among other things) that this is not a voting situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete writers whose work is primarily self-published or vanity-published are rarely notable. No indication he passes
WP:AUTHOR. I also strongly suspect a Spam/COI issue as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Self publishing by itself should not be a condemnation of notability. See:
Self_publishing#Self-published_best-sellers.Bides time (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That's misleading bordering on outright bullshit. If you actually look at that list nearly everything on it was eventially picked up by real, respected publishers. And don't start on Poe or Dickens either, because we all know self-financing books 200 years ago is extremely different from today's vanity-press tactics. Also, I notice you didn't even try to deny the Spam/COI issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING
is not going to work.

Well, he's right the self-publishing in itself is not a condemnation of notability, and I can point to a certain number of current authors, particularly in the comics realm, whose notability was quite sufficiently achieved through material they self-published and the recognition they received for that material. However, merely having a bunch of self-published books establishes nothing in terms of notability or recognition, all it means is that you recognize yourself. However, your use of the term "rarely" is appropriate, particularly considering the mass of authors self-publishing today, and your call that he meet
WP:AUTHOR, if the books are his source of notability, is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Upgrading to strong delete. Spam confirmed, any benefit of the doubt is gone at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why? When one is consulted as an expert in the field, any field. One becomes noteworthy. This is regardless of the opinions of others over whom is more or less note worthy. We are human beings and this person rose above the rest to be asked for his opinion by the press on a matter of scientific knowledge. He meets the criteria as he is cited in multiple places for his expertise. Thanks! Ali-sama (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of us will be quoted in the newspaper at some point, for witnessing the crime, for having a reaction to the parade, whatever. That does not make us sufficiently noteworthy. There is very little here in the way of folks referencing his expertise. Please check the appropriate notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant coverage about Turnbull in independent reliable sources. Being a self-published author does not bar Turnbull from meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. However, as an author (self-published or otherwise), an article is only justified if
WP:AUTHOR is met and fail to see how either guideline has been met in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Strong case for lack of notability made by Nat Gertler. Strong suspicion of COI as well StuartDouglas (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a signed review of his book Footprints in Red and added it to the article. There may be more things in print versions not available online, but I have not had time to look for them.Bides time (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only only book in worldcat, and that one is only in a single local library. Totally insignificant, and as an attempt for promotion, I think it qualifies for speedy G11. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. , nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete opinions —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Ram

Ashwin Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears not to satisfy any one of the criteria of notability at
WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Google Scholar Citation record: 830, 266, 139, 140, 130, 112, 99, 98, 94, 78. SL 7968 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL 7968 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as above. Would the nominator like to explain why he ignored the citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- obvious pass of C1 based on citations. One looks more closely at Associate Profs than Full Professors, but quite a few at top schools do pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article is a clear mess and needs much work to become acceptable. W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination. In reply to the question above, "Would the nominator like to explain why he ignored the citations?": human error. I was temporarily distracted by the promotional and non-encyclopaedic tone, and the blatant copyvio (compare this from 2006 to this from 1999); I saw little point in fixing those if he was anyway non-notable. I'm happy to defer to the judgement of others on his notability - I've no axe to grind here - and so withdraw my deletion request, in the hope that some of those who wanted to keep the article will also want to sort it out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphone Amplifiers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only contains the product details of the organization and no other contents, which is promotional. Sourov0000 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced listcruft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Under A7. Article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of products by now blocked COI editor with no indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphone Archtop Hollowbody & Semi-Hollowbody Guitars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains only the product names of the company which is obviously a promotional article. And it has no reference. Sourov0000 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced listcruft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Under A7 does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of instruments by a now blocked COI editor which gives no indication of notability. Borderline A7, but better just to let this AfD proceed its last three days. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hardy (broadcaster)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability criteria Krychek (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Does a long career in broadcasting, mostly on minor stations, make some one notable: I doubt it, but am not sure enough to vote for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. With such a long career to be notable you would expect lots of articles written about the person. Caffeyw (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A career in broadcasting is not notable in and of itself. Krychek (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Equity Partners

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was originally speedy deleted as an advert. That aspect has been corrected with the new article, but it does not make a credible assertion of notability. The references show, simply, that this is a jobbing venture capital company doing its day to day work. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me how this entry is different to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draper_Fisher_Jurvetson or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Venture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomico_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balderton_Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Catalyst or any number of other similar pages please? i am happy to amend this so that it fits but I can't see the differences Scottishwiki (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We certainly have other articles in this subjectt hat would also need to be removed, but the ones mentioned here are leading companies with references for their status. This one is a firm whose only significance is that it , along with others, has invested in some significant companies. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG, look in google books. I've even heard of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Notable" is not the same as "remarkable". The subject does indeed seem to be an unremarkable company doing its day to day work, but enough independent sources have noted it to make it clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I could also add the following news articles from FT http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5254c50-a40d-11df-a872-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cgKSpVi2 and the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/business/top-40-sep-firms-grow-sales-and-jobs-1-1355393 Scottishwiki (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability requirements due to reports such as[15][16][17][18] plus shorter references and possibly privateequityonline.com and the FT story (which I don't have access to). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add http://www.scotsman.com/business/management/scottish-equity-partners-to-sponsor-eve-muirhead-1-2944771 Scottishwiki (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- One of the difficulties in company finance is the stage where a company has become too big to be financed by the directors (with bank loans), but not big enough to be floated on the stock market. This is where venture capitalists such as this company fit in. Looking at the company website, it is clear that it is approving investments of a few million pounds more than once a month. This is cealrly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG and ORG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the "up for deletion" post be removed from the page please?Scottishwiki (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Four T's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A common term used in several different medical and non-medical contexts: no indication that this particular usage is primary, or more notable than the other 3 medical uses I find in my first page of ghits. DePRODded by original author. PamD 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

consider merge to Mediastinum#Role_in_disease. Lesion (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First couple of pages of my Ghits include The four T's of diabetes, resuscitation (also here, page 9) and
post-partum haemorrhage (but not mediastinum). Perhaps there's scope for a "List of medical uses of "The Four T's"" - but I wonder how many other similar sets of mnemonics there are, in this or other fields? PamD 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I had heard of the 4 Ts and the 4 Hs in resuscitation (see Cardiac_arrest#Hs_and_Ts and Hs and Ts, but this is not reason not to say 4ts on the mediastinum page imo. I am confused about why some of the sources for this mediastinum focused page discuss the 4ts of thrombocytopenia, and yet the page only talks about mediastinum masses. Clearly there are more than one use of the term "4T's", and if this article should be kept, it should discuss them all, and not be limited to one usage. Suggest if deleting this article, to go through each source and consider whether it is notable for merging to the relevant pages, such as Mediastinum#Role_in_disease ; thrombocytopenia, etc. Lesion (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apostrophe catastrophe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable medical
jargon. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannock Built-up Area

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles on small urban/Built-up areas such as this are in my view not notable otherwise there would be many articles about a couple of villages which form an urban area or articles on village's built-up area but excluding a couple of farms. The article itself spends most of its word count talking about subdivisions of this area. These subdivisions although well sourced lack any clear definition unlike the overall concept of an urban area. I previously tried to merge this article with the Cannock article but after some discussion there it was decided it would be better to delete this article. Eopsid (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Talk:Cannock#Cannock Built-up area merger this is the discussion regarding the merger undertaken after I merged the two after leaving up a merger notice for about a fortnight and then it was reverted after I'd done the merger. Eopsid (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is an area of urban sprawl due to a series of industrial villages having virually joined up. However the area is split between two districts. I thus cannot see how it can be regarded as a cherent whole. If the article is kept at all, I would suggest that it should become litlte more than a list, pointing to the articles on individual places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Each subdivision may be regarded as a coherent whole, and the whole area meets the ONS's definition of a Built-up Area. For an incoherent BUA, see
West Yorkshire Urban Area! "The article itself spends most of its word count talking about subdivisions of this area." - There are only two subdivisions and now only one sentence mentions them. "Subdivisions lack any clear definition." - The ONS says they are "to provide greater detail in the data, especially in the larger conurbations." Kinewma (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The West Yorkshire Urban Area is one of the larger conurbations that subdivisions were made for. Eopsid (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Many a BUA does not have a wiki article when it shares most of its population with a single town. But an article seems to me entirely justifiable when a BUA is covered by two or more towns in addition to other settlements, as in the case of the Cannock BUA. Cannock, Hednesford and Heath Hayes cover a built-up area that forms the core part of the BUA. But neither town (Cannock or Hednesford) has even 34% of the BUA's population, so the Cannock BUA article is by far the best place to describe it. Even the basic information about the BUA and its two subdivisions (population, area, map links, settlements) is too much for a short paragraph in either town's article. And a whole section would be inappropriate in an article about an area with under 34% of the BUA's population. The Cannock BUA is a conurbation with two towns (and other settlements), three railway stations, and a population of 86,121. It's a notable area bigger than 90% of BUAs and worthy of its own article. Kinewma (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still is the smallest English BUA with an article. The lack of a real centre is probably the best argument for keeping this article. Unfortunately I can't find any sources which talks about the Cannock BUA other than the ONS one. If I could find another source then this article would be in a much better position to be kept because articles for other small British conurbations like Levenmouth and Deeside have other sources. However there is some debate in those cases especially the latter as to whether the BUA = Deeside or whether it doesn't because the BUA isn't called Deeside and includes areas not usually considered part of Deeside. Eopsid (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Cannock Chase Council refers to local urban areas in numerous reports it doesn't refer to precisely the area(s) defined by the ONS so doesn't use their terminology. The ONS-defined areas are those for which the ONS provides population statistics. Kinewma (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You basically just said ONS defined areas are those defined by the ONS. My point was that other small Urban Areas/BUAs/Conurbations with articles do so partly because they have other sources talking about them not just the ONS one. Eopsid (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems as reasonable an article as one about any similar geographical subdivision. That is might be somewhat arbitrary is no reason to exclude it. We have to take the world as we find it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Devlin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DAB page without any article for the name to be disambiguated. None of the entries is notable. noq (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 3 valid entries, all meet
MOS:DABMENTION. Potential for confusion - nothing to be gained by deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; my rationale, as copied from
WP:1EVENT, but as they are notable for something a redirect to one of them would be inappropriate". However, Boleyn puts it much better than I and so keep per her.--Laun chba ller 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

This is actually the second time this article title has been deleted though the first AFD in 2011 considered only the "millionaire" Steve Devlin and decided he wasn't notable. That said, disambiguation would seem to have some value if there is any chance of confusion. I'm probably at weak keep for those reasons. Stalwart111 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned in target articles. Siuenti (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cruise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical article. See:

WP:NOTFACEBOOK Subject's notability is not well established by sources independent of the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are just enough assertions of notability to where this can't be speedied, but in the end the guy just isn't notable enough for his own entry. After I trimmed down the article and found one actual non-primary and non-merchant source, I just wasn't able to find anything to show notability for him, at least not enough to warrant his own article.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Here is a second reliable secondary source, which means he scrapes in on
WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

We need more than two news articles to show notability. The only time that 1-2 or even 3-4 sources will be enough would be if they were asserting something so overwhelmingly notable (such as him winning a Dove Award) that the article would be kept on that basis alone. The problem here is that the the third source on the article is a
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - reliable journalistic coverage seems thin on the ground, basically comprising of the article in Baptist Press which is partically devoted to him. I can't find any relaible reviews of any of his books either. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yup, he's affiliated with the SBC. This article remarks that one of Cruise's books was published by "B&H Publishing Group, the trade books division of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention". Since Baptist Press is the official paper of the SBC, that means that any article they write about him would be considered a primary source since it's in their best interest to write about him since they are publishing his product. So we're pretty much left with just one source, which isn't enough for notability.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
He has a quote in the
New York Times, reprinted from the Joelton Journal. Citation: Emily Yellin, "Joelton Journal: An Evangelical Group for Hunters"
, March 23, 2000. Last couple paragraphs.

Another source: "BRIEF: Church blesses the annual hunt", Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (Tupelo, MS), Nov 14, 2009, Quote: "The church will have a 'turkey shoot' Saturday night. Sunday is 'camo day.' This year's guest speaker is Jason Cruise, a Franklin, Tenn., resident and founder of the Outdoor Ministry Network which works with the Tennessee Baptist Convention to teach pastors and others how to reach men who love to hunt and fish." (From database: Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOHost).

With the The Tennessean it points to some notability as an evangelical Christian sportsman (hunter). These are brief but reliable, a couple more sources I'd vote keep. --
talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clearly not notable. Worldcat shows of the two books he wrote, one is in 19 libraries, and the other in 22. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with the quote at the NYT source is that quotes aren't considered to be something that could show notability since most of the time they're getting quoted on something else and aren't the subject of the article in question. They've always been considered trivial sources for as long as I've been here, as someone can get quoted a hundred times yet never get any actual in-depth coverage. It means that he might be considered a reliable source on Christian/Evengelical hunters, but that's not something that gives notability.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- I do not think he has yet done enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. Ashbeckjonathan 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cavarrone's evidence of persistent, significant coverage has not been rebutted. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per continous coverage during the years, 2012 ([19], [20], [21], [22]), 2011 ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]), 2010, 2009 (in the top 10 crime stories according to Time magazine). Also global scope is clearly met, add to some of the sources listed above: Russia, England, Hungary, New Zealand, Danmark, Chile,Italy, Italy#2, Brasil.... The case is also covered in the book Praey to God (2011) and was yet mentioned in an editorial article no later than a month ago ([28]). Cavarrone 07:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the above stated facts. and it has been deemed notable before.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting significance of this crime is demonstrated. The coverage is what you would expect of a crime like this, the crime is not notable; there is a good case to be made that the individuals that were killed were notable in there own right and should have own articles; however the act of Murder is not on its own of encyclopaedic note. LGA _talk^edits 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" The coverage is what you would expect of a crime like this" is an empty argument, a non notable crime is expected to be covered once in the
WP:EVENT. Cavarrone 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are questions on the notability as an event. "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Doubtful it has served as a catalyst or precident. Scope is unlikely to be significant. The coverage, though long lasting, has it been in depth or just routine, reminding people of the case, its unsolved nature and an overview of the event? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting effect is most probably not met here. Lasting effect is also just one of several criteria of
WP:PERSISTENCE. Cavarrone 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree totally; the "Lasting effect" criteria is the fundamental criteria in
WP:NOTNEWS policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." in order to have enduring notability an event has to have a lasting effect. LGA _talk^edits 20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

First, don't shout. Second, we have multiple criteria at
WP:LASTING. Cavarrone 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I suggest that everyone take a look at
WP:NTEMP. It covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

No, it doesn't - NTEMP does not apply to events, which have their own set of rules. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but unfortunately significant coverage has yet been determined. The coverage must not be routine, has that been established? One editor claims it meets GEOSCOPE, how so? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The case received a lot of significant coverage, eg. found in a three minutes search a 16 pages indepht article by
The Huffington Post,a whole episode of Dateline NBC (episode 18x72, "No Safe Place"), more insights. With no mention to all the international coverage listed above, these national-wide sources yet meets GEOSCOPE, which refers to event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region. Cavarrone 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per sources by
WP:EVENT. No clear advantage to our readers or the encyclopedia in removing such well sourced, policy-compliant information. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Mazahery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails to meet the requirements for notability

Ahmed Batebi. However, it has since been revealed that she never completed represented of Batebi in his asylum proceedings, as reflected in disciplinary proceedings against her: PDF Report Kabirat (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kabirat (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kabirat (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kabirat (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Subject clearly meets
WP:GNG, plenty of refs, including NY Times, Village Voice, etc. Reasons given for deletion are not valid. Disbarment or disciplinary action at the D.C. Bar is not grounds to eliminate her article. GregJackP Boomer! 06:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -
talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. as author requested by User:Miniapolis. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Haynes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by

WP:RELIABLE source. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a vanity article. Before each person is notable, presumably the White Hat Alliance would need to be notable enough to merit an article for example. W Nowicki (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per
WP:BLP Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the article talks about what a great guy with great motivations the subject is. I don't see it as crossing the threshold into

WP:CSD#g10. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

regular delete unless convincing reliable sourcing is found. The article cannot be a vanity page and an attack page at the same time. Its tone is too laudatory, (almost braggadocious) for me to view it as an attack. Dloh cierekim 01:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 07:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete vanity article. See also
WP:NOTINHERITED. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete As per Ritchie333 and Msnicki and clearly Lacks
WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note this Closing Admin:This article is paid for and written on a request from a Third Party the Editor is a Freelancer and edits in many sites including

Elance.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Hi, i wrote this article, feel free to delete it. I would, but I don't know how. I already removed all the content from the page. Neurosciency (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note blanking noted. I would do the job, but I already took part in the discussion. Tagging. Dloh cierekim 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete: this is an obvious hoax Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cats of Woodside, South Australia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:N(E). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete - as hoax. I looked up so many variations on this and found literally nothing. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. "As has been written in the history annals of Woodside, these three cats have fought for the ownership of the town, and have not taken any prisoners in their ascent to the throne"? Not on this planet... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. If it were true it would fail on notability, but the incidental details are so clearly made up that it can only be a joke.--AJHingston (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per

wp:g11. This is clearly promotional and fits squarely within the definition of g11. I personally also firmly believe that this is also not-notable, but since this AfD is being closed early, obviously there is not official consensus as to notability. If disinterested editors, not including AIKhan21, wish to write a neutral article sourced from what marginal sources were adduced in this article, they may feel free to do so. I believe it's impossible, but I am ready to be proven wrong of course. -- Y not? 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

OSL Consulting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:N -- I couldn't find any non-affiliated source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been able to locate some sources that are not affiliated to this organisation.
1. Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
Website: http://www.icheme.org/careers/acts/acts_companies/technology_and_consulting.aspx
2. East England Energy Group (EEEGR)
Website: http://www.eeegr.com/directory/osl-consulting-875.html

These institutes are very reputable, and they've shared the information cited on this article after thorough checking procedures. It goes to show that the information is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.131.206 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources specified above do not show notability, only that it is listed in directories. The company clearly wrote the first off them itself. The article itself claims nothing more than having consulted for a notable project. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE -- The article has now been further referenced from newspaper articles. Just to clarify to those still being a bit silly, the company does not own the Telegraph or the Hull Daily Mail. The company does not own the Nigerian Government's Department of Petroleum Resource either. I think the deletion tag should now be removed from the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIKhan21 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further sources cited -- http://www.youroilandgasnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=47818 . Once again a secondary neutral source. Abdullah Ibrahim 10:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIKhan21 (talk • contribs)

I have tidied of the presentation of the preceding. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a company, not a membership organisation. "affiliation" is thus irrelevant. A consulting company may well have a substantial input to the developemtn of a project. I am thus reluctant to write the company off in the way the nom does. However I do not know, and am not voting formally. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. In addition to the sources provided above, there are also news stories in local papers ([29], [30]) Searching OSL instead of OSL Consulting provides more sources about the company. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan: Adhyayam Ondru

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a shelved film ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not inherently a reason to delete. Even shelved films could get notability for a variety of reasons (controversy perhaps). If there is another reason to indicate it as non notable then pelase cite that I will then change from weak support/keep Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are true, but this film failed to even begin. All that came was a teaser poster. For more info, pls read here and here ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete for now (IE:
Gautham Menon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Nothing seems to have come of it. WP:CRYSTAL appears to apply to the comments above about what may/may not happen. Caffeyw (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has come of it yet, certainly, but it is "shelved" not cancelled... and plans received coverage in multiple independent sources. It is unsourcable guessing to suppose when speaking about the film plans of a very notable Indian film director, that "nothing" will ever happen... which is the same type of
  premature for an article, we discuss where and how to handle that information as discussed in multiple sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tamil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashumon

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, defunct software. This article (which appears to have been added by the software's author) has no independent sourcing of any kind, so it does not meet the

MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Well, to begin with, this is not a new article and I am NOT the one who wrote this article originally, just added some further information. There are many sources to backup the notability of this product. This product is considered to be notable because of its ability to handle multi-lingual text on Amiga computers before that was common. Just look at www.aminet.net and other sources for Amiga products. All the sources that follow are independent. Most of them are from the years 1989-1994 and many sources aren't indexed by Google.

Recollapsing article sources

  1. Article about Rashumon at Amiga User International(UK)

  2. Amiga Report article

  3. Aminet  (www.aminet.net)

  4. http://leb.net/reader/text/reader.list/v11/n02.v11

  5. An article about the Arabic support added to Rashumon

  6. amigafuture (Germany)

  7. "textfiles" - Amiga software products (among them Rashumon)

  8. OS News

  9. Full text where Rashumon was reviewed in Amiga World magazine

  10. An article about Rashumon at Enigma Amiga Run, volume 54 page 12, Italy - see also a scan

  11. A review by Sams Harari, editor of "32 Bit" Magazine, November 1991 (Hebrew, plus translation to English)

  12. "Amiga my friend", a review about Rashumon published by Maariv_(newspaper) daily newspaper.

You can also view scanned copies of printed articles about this product: To verify the authenticy of the scanned articles, this web site holds all scanned volumes of Amazing Computing and here you can find issues of Amiga World.

  13a. Amiga World - Article about Rashumon
  13b. An article about Rashumon's new version, Amazing Computing 7-Apr-1992
  13c. Another write-up about Rashumon, Amazing Computing 08-Oct-1993
  13d. An article about Rashumon's Desktop Publishing version 1.2D in Amazing Computing Sep-1992
  13e. An article about Rashumon version 2.3 at Amazing Computing, May 1994
  13f. An article published in Germany, Aktuel Magazine
  13g. An article published in Denmark, HiScore Magazine
  13h. An article about Rashumon published at Amiga User International Magazine (UK), 1994
  13i. A news article published by Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel, 1991 (Hebrew with translation into English)
  13j. An article about Rashumon at Enigma Amiga Run, volume 54 page 12, Italy
  13k. Certificate for Rashumon issued by the Israeli Ministry of Education and Calture
  13l. Review about Rashumon published by daily newspaper Maariv_(newspaper) 1991

Author's sources:

  14. Author's own article about the development of Rashumon (plus source code)

  15. An article in Amiga.org user group, by the author

  16. Flickr photo stream of sources and scanned material

Updated

talk) 10:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I see two indiscriminate product directories, An old usenet post, and a scanned image that is too small to be legible. These are not the

MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your response. Aminet is the official site for Amiga software. The write up (that appears too small) is here again:Article about Rashumon There are MANY other resources, most of them unfortunately are printed material but I have asked colleges form the Amiga community to look for such. Please remove the deletion nomination to give us time to provide more references but in my opinion, the sources that are currently will be sufficient to keep this article any how. Just to let you know, the Amiga magazines that mentioned Rashumon were: Amiga World (just added a link to it), and Amazing_Computing. The scanned write-up is from a UK magazine named Amiga Format. (I have the original somewhere).

talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my original list of sources and argument as per your comments. --

talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Back then bidirectional support and proportional fonts were not features built into the OS and Rashumon had both. I was one of the customers and supporter of Rashumon. It was a product very unique to the Amiga in general and Amiga users in Israel in particular. Agovrin (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Washington, USA — Agovrin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have seen here a request which came from another user to vote for this article. I am shocked and would like to ask you to ignore such odd request which causes more damage than good (I reverted it instantly). I think I have provided the necessary sources to back up the value of this article and wouldn't like such vandalism acts to hurt this article. Thanks for your understanding.

talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Amazingly, that exact message was posted to an amiga forum, under your username, so who could have written that improper notice? I wonder... Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the sources (blogs, obscure magazines) and coverage depth meet our
notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

delete The sources are reliable, and their age/obscurity is irrelevant, but the coverage therein is minimal. in passing blurbs do not count. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was one of the important milestones in the history of Amiga software, a word-processor that was way ahead of its time in terms of WYSIWYG and Postscript support. I used this software so I can attest to its qualifications. Otherwise I have no connection to this program or its author.Yuvalg9 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, the above user is involved in sock/meat puppetry and canvassing on this subject per this diff [31] and is the subject of an SPI investigation as a suspected sock/meatsock, along with Agovrin, of Michael.Haephrati. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, the above vote should be counted. The user was not proven a sock/meat puppetry (see

talk • contribs

)

Delete - What mentions are out there are trivial and in mostly non-reliable sources. This is fast becoming a meatpuppet/sockpuppet happyfest, too. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of those sources seem like reliable sources to provide an indication of it's notability. Directory listings, adverts, an interview with the author, download sites etc are not third party reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By those sources given by Michael.haephrati above, it seems notable enough. Marko75 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind telling me how you came across this AFD after a seven month absence? -
MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

MrOllie, you seem to be suspicious and negative to anyone who votes to keep the article. Looks like you have a personal issue here while everyone here is expected to be impartial.Yuvalg9 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A desire to keep the project free of non-notable subjects and defending deletion discussions against a wave of sock/meatpuppets such as yourself does not mean that Ollie or myself or others have a "personal issue" here. This could be Rashumon or Polandball or Orville. There was no bias towards any of these fan-driven projects, we just point to the simple fact that they do not meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Rashumon, nor Polandball, nor Orville. My name is Marko Seppänen, not anyone else. I almost take that as personal insult, distrusting me as user Marko75 to not be real. Therefore I will leave this discussion here. Marko75 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not understand a single word that I said. The point was, the claim that MrOllie has a "personal issue" just because he feels this article does not meet this projects notability standards is bullshit. I pointed out some similar deletion discussions in the past where the fans of said topics were passionate, but passion does not make a non-notable thing become notable here. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, you should be very careful in accusing accounts of being puppets. You have presented no evidence of such, so there is just as much evidence of such for Marko75 as there is of any of the other accounts voting for deletion of this article. Your accusation against Marko75 of "a wave of sock/meatpuppets such as yourself" and his direct response to this means that he did understand the very words that you said. Please consider more carefully such accusations in the future. Such accusations seems to indicate some sort of pre-bias against this subject or some editor involved in the article. In other words, they bias people against your position. Val42 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your "caution" elsewhere, as I dismiss it out of hand. We have piles of "new" editors showing up here who have never edited anywhere else, we have one who votes to keep after 5 months of inactivity, and the cherry on top was thus Yuvalg9 guy screwing up and posting his canvassing notice here, soliciting keep votes from other fanboys off-wiki. You're all quite clearly complicit in gaming and undermining this deletion discussion. If you do not like simple truths pointed out to you, then don't try to pull easily-exposed stunts like this in public. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk • contribs

)

Keep Because of unique features -- Polluks ★ 09:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amiga software. This is probably the best compromise because Wikipedia's standards of "what should have its own article" are stricter than its standards of "what should be mentioned" (in another article). I was contacted by Wikipedia email about this, and in this case I have interpreted it as a good faith request for help from an editor whose English is not perfect and who might not have understood all the relevant guidelines. By the way, describing a feature as "revolutionary" is probably not NPOV (at best, if you can find a 'reliable source' that said such a thing, you could quote what it said, but the Wikipedia text itself should probably be more neutral). The same goes for describing the screen updates as "ultra fast" (maybe it would be more interesting if the article said something about the method that was used for this and exactly how much of a speedup it got over other wordprocessors of the time). WordStar had multiple selections before Rashumon, so multiple selections wasn't original, although it's possible that Rashumon's multiple selections worked a bit differently from Wordstar's; perhaps they worked a bit like GIMP's discontinuous selections? anyway it would probably be necessary to find outside sources that said a feature was useful to others to demonstrate notability (for example, has anyone ever found it useful to search for a word in a specific colour?) I've implemented many features in my own software that I hoped would be really useful to everyone, but in some cases I could be the only one who ever used that feature. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is mostly a notebook about what is/was important to the community, not what's actually good. If your software or my software has some feature of amazing value, but nobody else can see it, then that doesn't count on Wikipedia. But remember that Wikipedia isn't everything! Just because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something, that doesn't mean there's no real value in that thing. Incidentally a while ago I put an essay on my personal website (full of original research and other no-nos) called the “go and argue with them” fallacy which I hope will help us not to get too carried away with making sure this or that reference site says what we want :-) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 13:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashumon was published in 1989 and had discontinuous selections and was the only graphic word processor to have that. Anyhow, to follow your lead, I would say that many features such as "searching the word 'tomato' in red and replacing it with 'banana' in yellow" were indeed gimmicks, and same goes with the feature of having the text read out load, but it happens that these two were mentioned and emphasized as unique by the news articles and reviews published about Rashumon, which some of them are brought here. (After decision is made, I will add some of these as references in the article itself). In my opinion, the notability Rashumon has, lays on the multilinguality, as it brought Amiga users the ability to edit text in opposed direction languages (such as Hebrew-English, or Arabic-French), which no other word processor for the Amiga could provide. The Operating System didn't support that, (unlike Any OS these days that embed this functionality), so it required huge custom and low level development. M. H. 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge into Amiga productivity software. It would be better in this more-specific page. I was contacted by email because I'm an Amiga user from near its beginning (1985), but haven't used it since a few years after Commodore went bankrupt. However, I have never heard of this software before. Val42 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Being the only word processor that was available for editing documents with multiple and opposed direction languages on the Amiga, and as the sources brought are indeed genuine and reliable (news papers and magazines), Rashumon deserves to keep it's own page (which exists for 3 years already).M. H. 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

Comment Why I think Rashumon deserves it's own separate article. Please look at these examples of news articles from reliable sources:

- A review done by Sems Harari, "32 Bit" Magazine (Hebrew + translation to English)

Quote: "... Rashumon can combine text in two languages properly; each line can be characterize separately based on its main language... A unique graphic word processor for the Amiga computer...".

- A write up by Amiga User International

Quote: "... This seems appropriate as HarmonySoft emphasises multilingual aspect of their program."

- Write With A Twist, published by Amiga World Magazine

Quote: "Want to combine the Greek, Arabic, English and Hebrew languages in one document? The Rashumon, Graphic Word Processor / DTP Publisher can do it" M. H. 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment for what it's worth, I just copied/pasted all those refs into the article (new References section). It needs more work though (maybe by someone more familiar with Amigas than I am; the only Amiga I ever touched was the one that happened to be connected to a piano keyboard in a school music department, and all I did then was save a MIDI file for further work on a PC; I never got any idea about how to do any real work on the Amiga). Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I arranged these sources and references a bit (cosmetically) but still need to work on it, and will appreciate any help. --M. H. 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now

listed this article on the "rescue list" at WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron as I think there is potential if all these references can be sorted out. Unfortunately I don't have much time to help myself during the time-frame of this deletion discussion. But I would say keep if these refs can be sorted out and we can clearly show what was notable about this piece of software. (In fact, if my reading of Wikipedia:Deletion process is correct, the original nominator of the AfD ought to withdraw their nomination if the reason for it goes away.) Silas S. Brown(email, talk) 20:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What does result=keep mean in this comment?

The article has this comment at the top: For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Rashumon|date=21 August 2013|result='''keep'''}} OK I understand this is "for administrator use only" but just out of curiosity can someone explain what result=keep means when the AfD is still open? Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research and in the AfD template, there are fields like 'date', 'page' ,etc. One of these fields is 'result" and the default value for this field is "keep". --M. H. 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If the article is kept, an admin closing the debate would copy that template to the talk page of the article. In that way, editors would know that the article had been nominated for deletion, had been kept, and could read the debate. If the article is deleted, the template doesn't matter because there would be no talk page to copy it to - so there's no "delete" version. It's just a time saver for whatever admin comes through to close out the debate, and it is part of every single AFD tag, regardless of the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Magazines have written articles about it in the past. Therefore it clearly meets the
general notability guidelines. Not all old magazines are archived online. Obviously the Amiga computer system is long dead and gone, so no magazines dedicated to it are still going. Dream Focus 23:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Messy AFD aside, the sources provided show that it clearly meets
notability is not temporary. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep decent coverage for passing general notability threshold. No prejudice against a merging discussion on the article talk page. Cavarrone 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral as to whether this article should be deleted or kept, but I felt the need to disclose this. Michael.haephrati has been contacting me by e-mail since my initial detective-work on ANI. His e-mail confirmed that it was him (not someone else named Michael Haephrati) who posted the off-wiki canvassing, and that he had edited the post to be more "neural" after I pointed it out on ANI. His initial e-mail also mentioned that he was "looking for cooperation with any user or editor". He has apparently read
WP:CANVAS and made a good-faith misinterpretation of the part that says "Notifications must be ... neutrally worded with a neutral title" to refer to off-wiki communications as well as talk page comments. It therefore seems incredibly likely to me that Michael.haephrati located Marko75 by some means (though they have had effectively no interaction before now) and in good-faith contacted him by e-mail. Or, given the history here, it might have been another user who contacted him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

With all due respect I resent that accusation. Sending onsite email messages (

notability is not temporary

...M. H. 11:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I never accused you of being Yuvalg9. Anyone who did so would need to be a complete idiot, as you clearly meant to hide that posting from the Wikipedia community as indicated by your reverting Yuvalg9. Please take that accusation back. You do, however, above assert that you are not the original creator of the article, even though that user in his last edit seemed to strongly imply that he was none other than you. Sending e-mails to multiple users, no matter how neutral they are, is frowned upon, as I have already told you in our e-mail interaction. Start using user talk pages, stop posting obviously NOT neutral messages on external forums, and stop claiming not to be the same person as the original creator of the article, and then we might be able to trust you as a Wikipedia editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I am not yuvalg9, but I have provided a claim thinking otherwise. I didn't try to hide any posting (it is impossible to hide anything in Wikipedia, as all history is kept forever), and I thought what yuvalg9 did was inappropriate. At that time, and as I tried to explain again and again, I haven't realized that there could be such thing as offsite canvasing, so I didn't see any problem with the original forum message I have posted offsite, which is identical to what yuvalg9 has posted here (which is why I assumed he copied form this forum). I then realized that canvasing can also take place offsite, and changed this forum message and wrote about that in my Talk page. I didn't try to hide the original forum and in fact it appears in my reference list. I am aware about what you wrote to me in our private emails exchange and first I didn't mass email, but used a Wikipedia feature. If there is an email feature, I (and anyone) can use it. If you don't want to receive emails, change your account's settings. Also, I am not the creator of this article and even though I have connection to the old company Harmony Soft, being one of the founders, that doesn't mean I was the only founder nor the only person involved. Several persons where involved in this venture and I am not obliged to reveal the identity of whom started this article, even if I knew who he or she is. I don't know your identity, and same goes with most of the Wikipedia users who doesn't use their real name. Please don't use the word "we" when you express your own opinion. I understand from your message that you don't trust me as an editor, and I am sorry to hear that. I got some positive feedbacks about my editing and I can tell you that I do trust you as an editor. Since I trust you, and to be on the safe side, I removed the offsite forum message.M. H. 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Updated M. H. 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is degenerating into a waste of time; just work through the AFD. The closing admin will be well aware of the canvassing issues now, it need not be discussed further. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note MH, despite promising to refrain from on- and off-site canvassing, has maintained this thread post with "Wikipedia page about an Amiga word processor (Rashumon)" in the title, despite having apparently edited the posting "Yesterday at 12:21 PM..". Someone named AndreasM posted this on "24.08.2013 - 09:31", which appears to be a copy of something MH posted after the canvassing scandal took place:

"If you have an opinion about that matter, Please express it in this page. (Apparently new Wikipedia members can't vote)

If you have more reliable sources such as magazine reviews, etc. please send them to me.

Thanks,

Michael Haephrati <email removed>

I'm noticing that taken purely on number of !votes, "Keep" seems to have the lead, but given the rampant canvassing ... I don't envy the admin who has to figure out how to close this fairly ... maybe block MH and re-nominate with a semi-protected AFD and close it after 4 days ...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<Personal attack removed> I am not trying to fight you back but please get off of me!!! I don't know and don't care who published this forum message (that seems to be a copy of the one I have deleted, from a different forum. You (and so am I) can't control the entire world, but in any case I am 100% sure that my original message (which I have deleted) was perfectly OK and kept a natural tone, and even though, to be on the safe side, and to show my respect to the Wikipedia community. I deleted my message off site. I am not going to continue this ridicules argument with you, which goes round and round in circles.M. H. 13:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

MH, <Response to removed personal attack also removed for use of inappropriate language>. The parenthetical statement clearly shows you edited the message after the page was protected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MH, don't provoke me with a gross personal attack so I respond with justifiably foul language on an essentially hidden forum, then re-post my comment in the middle of this AFD and then claim my defence against your unprovoked personal attack was itself a personal attack. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? When you use bad language against someone, take responsibility! Apologize! Don't look for excuses... I preferred all discussions to take place in the Talk page. You insisted and edit-war'ed me to move them back and now you are complaining that your embarrassing cursing appear in the main page? Michael Haephrati 18:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

Hijiri 88, You are out of line and writing to other editors here the following text: "shove them up your ass" will probably lead to blocking you (again), due to breaching the Wikipedia Civility code, so this is your last warning. Please take back these expressions that don't belong here and if you don't I will have to file a formal complaint about is as I am NOT going to tolerate such language.

"Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks.". M. H. 13:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

I have just checked my own offsite post which was changed and doesn't mention Wikipedia at all. The original post was about 2 issues and I left the 2nd issue which has nothing to do with Wikipedia and this debate. I have now noticed that the title wasn't changed and I have changed it.M. H. 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

I believe you mean to say that the post NO LONGER contains references to wikipedia, because it certainly did originally. File:Haephrati canvsassing.png Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot that you have placed here is the original version which was changed after several minutes. I then changed the text accordingly, phrasing my invitation to be neutral, asking visitors to express their opinion and vote to delete or keep the article, and finally, even though not required to, deleted the post entirely to be on the safe side. M. H. 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Mostly because MH's harassing of me both on-wiki and by e-mail has convinced me that something must be fishy here. No prejudice toward a non-COI, non-sock-using editor creating a new article at a later date. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for clarity Despite MH's comment below (I really wish he'd stop (1) removing/editing other users' comments and (2) requesting that other users remove/edit their own comments), I actually have a nuanced opinion on what should be done with this article. In my opinion, this AFD has been a complete sham since last week, since roughly half of the !votes need to be dismissed out of hand and the one posting all the sources is an obvious COI editor who is also responsible for 100% of the off-site canvassing, and has been lying constantly and doing his very best to cover up his underhand activities. I think the sources do technically make the topic meet GNG (though just barely), but I think more can be gained from deleting the article, keeping this AFD, and allowing other users to come along later and create a decent article using the sources MH has provided us. That's what I meant by "no prejudice toward a non-COI, non-sock-using editor creating a new article at a later date". MH has provided us with some semi-decent sources, but he's also spent precisely zero-effort on using these sources to improve the article itself, while posting non-stop screes against his fellow Wikipedians, altering/removing/refactoring their edits, and constantly refusing to admit how many users he e-mailed, how many external forums he asked for help on, how many accounts he has edited from. I therefore think not only has this AFD been poisoned, but the article itself has been poisoned by all of these scandals, and there's nothing to be lost -- and plenty to be gained -- by deleting the current article and starting over. And if anyone thinks this is an ad hominem argument, bear in mind that if I worked that way I would be at least as likely to !vote the same way as Lukeno94 as I am to !vote the opposite way as MH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin: this is not a genuine vote but someone trying to start a personal fight with me, calling me names and cursing me. The place for such attacks is definitely not in this page. The article about Rashumon is not me, and I am not the article. These are 2 separate entities. See the talk page for examples of Hijiri 88's attacks. Hijiri 88 has placed already a comment about this article and wrote: "I'm neutral as to whether this article should be deleted or kept", but I felt the need to disclose this. Michael.haephrati has". So now, suddenly he has a different opinion about this article? doesn't seem so. If the sources provided here proves that this article is about a notable product, then, as someone wrote here: notability is not temporary. A vote can't be done as a "revenge" or as part of a personal dispute or attack. It should be noted. I don't know him and don't have anything against him, even though he seems to keep posting more and more comments and accusations and till now, I took the time and answered to each and one of them, trying to be polite as much as I can. Please ignore this vote.M. H. 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to do that. The closing admin will review all comments and judge them on the merits. An editor might want an article deleted, then see that it has been improved and later change his/her recommendation. The reverse can also be true - an article might look ok on its face, but later be shown to be a copyright violation. You don't get to decide what counts and what does not. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets
canvassing off-site editors to participate in this AfD, and he should stop disruptively removing things he disagrees with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The long list of article shows that this passes
WP:GNG. We don't punish the behavior of some editors by penalizing our readers. The behavioral issues can be solved at ANI, where there is a thread posted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, as it has requisite coverage in independent sources. Needs clean-up, but that is not cause to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin The MH account has now been blocked as a sock/disruptive editor. As they have extensively edited this discussion, I think it would be disruptive for me to go through and strike/delete everything, but keep it in mind. Based on the later !votes from established editors, consensus may well be that this passes GNG in spite of the shenanigans involved earlier. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road Princess

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student film is not notable, fails

WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 11:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for failing
WP:NF. I cleaned up the article but could not find it spoken of in any reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I wish the director well, but at this point in time the student film just isn't notable. There's no coverage in reliable sources.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Port Hope Simpson Diaries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

self promotion, all seven "references" are the book itself, six of them with a link to an online retailer. Jevansen (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be included on Wikipedia, books should be reviewed in multiple reliable sources such as Canadian newspapers or magazines, to establish they are "notable". --
talk) 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I most strongly object to The Port Hope Simpson Diaries been deleted first of all because they have not been written to blatantly self-promote. It is not for me to judge whether or not they are judged 'notable' according to Wikipedia's criteria but from my point of view they were honestly and accurately written at the time and proved invaluable in helping me adjust to the challenging environment within which I lived and worked at 18 years of age from 1969-70. I have self-published so that others may or may not agree that they make a worthwhile contribution to the general educational history of the Labrador. I think someone may like to contact former Labrador Senator, the Honourable William Rompkey (with whom I worked on writing the history of the VSO in Labrador 1960-70) for his contribution to this discussion? Ernest 'Ernie' Robert Llewelyn Pritchard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelynpritchard (talk • contribs)

Reply - This discussion is not about the merits of the work; it is about whether an encyclopedia article about the work is justified. On Wikipedia, the term "notability" as a specific meaning; it refers to Wikiedpia's
inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Anybody reading my public diaries can check on the validity and reliability of their content and their sources if they so wish. They are an accurate record of my thoughts at the time. Llewelyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelynpritchard (talk • contribs) I hope readers may generally agree the Port Hope Simpson Diaries make a significant contribution to the history of education in Labrador, Newfoundland & Labrador Province of Canada. Llewelyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewelynpritchard (talk • contribs)

Reply - I don't think you're getting it. No one is questioning the reliability of the diaries. Please read the inclusion criteria that Whpq linked to above and
WP:BKCRIT. As a starting point, can you provide us with any reliable sources that have reviewed these diaries? Jevansen (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Keith (comedian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this article after declining a speedy on his book Guys Have No Game (which I've redirected to this article). After looking at the original state of the article ([32]) I thought I'd do a little bit of a cleanup to find sources and whatnot since some notability was asserted. However I can't really find anything as far as reliable sources go that would show that he's ultimately notable. There are some articles written by some semi-obscure college papers (which I linked to in the article), but none that would really give him enough notability to keep. I'm not even really all that sure that the student papers I did place on the article are really usable as reliable sources to begin with. Other than that I found various unusable sources such as notifications of events and this article that briefly mentions him as one of several comedians that had jokes stolen by someone. As far as his television performances go, I can't see where his contributions are so overwhelmingly notable that he'd merit a keep on that basis. I can't find anything that would show that he's anything more than a number of various comedians brought in to do a 5 minute warmup act for the main show. I don't mean to say that doing such things doesn't make him talented, as there are some people who have gotten quite a bit of fame for doing just that, but none of these are significant roles or performances. He also doesn't have a large fanbase or significant cult following, nor is he considered to be so unique, prolific, or innovative that he'd keep on that basis alone. He's performed quite a bit, but no more than the average hard-working comedian. The bar for that is set fairly high, far higher than his performance history seems to show. At most this could probably redirect to

(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see his name mentioned, and I see event listings. All this proves that he is making a living a comedian. But it does not establish that a Wikipedia article is justified. Student newspapers do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - INDEPENDENT Sources; these are primary sources for Pete's sake! This particular article would have been notable if this article's creater or another user would have added RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources. Ashbeckjonathan 22:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Najumuddin Saqib

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax? Or maybe transliteration mangling? The two works claimed to have been written are not mentioned anywhere else on the web according to google. I'm not seeing any matches in http://viaf.org/ or other searches. I'm happy to withdraw the PROD if someone identifies this person in http://viaf.org/; comes up with an ISBN of a book by them; or similar. PROD removed with the addition of this link which includes only single passing mention.

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found evidence in a Persian-language history blog that he probably existed[33][34], but the couple mentions are brief (listed as an author). Can confirm there is nothing in JSTOR, Gale or Proquest databases. Probably what sources exist are offline, rare, in private collections, often the case in that part of the world. If a specialist had opinion I would change my vote. --
talk) 17:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A few passing mentions do not help a subject pass
WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murasaki Baby

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kind of wish the article creator would slow down a bit. It seems to be what they do; start up an article on a just-announced game with a mere singular sentence and source. Not making much of an effort to meet the
WP:GNG...though there is more info available as well... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Note that I'm not the creator and have made changes including the removal of the inappropriate "hoax" flag. I was logged in for all of my changes, I promise the IP addresses are one or more other persons. The game was just announced. I wish the original creator of the article would have waited longer though so that we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Faddle, I know you're sad it took me 5 minutes to easily show it wasn't a hoax but I wish you would drop your vendetta to get this deleted and leave it up to others. There are more sources and information coming while the game conference this was announced at continues, at least give us a week.WhereAmI (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that the CSD/hoax claim was pretty poorly thought out. A simple google search should have cleared that up in a matter of seconds. However, I'm not unsure as to whether or not it meets the
  WP:GNG yet or not. Seems like most sources just confirm the game exists. Articles aren't always kept if all there is, is 20 sources all rewording/paraphrasing the same announcement... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(edit conflict)Comment Assuming good faith is a requirement, please keep personal remarks out of your arguments. Since details are emerging it seems most sensible to delete the article and await notability. The absolute bar to entry here is lack of notability. If it hasn't got that then it doesn't belong here. It may exist, but that does not make it notable. The initial article looked precisely like a hoax, one title, a reference to something entirely different. In this version the game has no notability, no track record. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Personally I would have likely created a redirect to an article since the game has been officially announced but details sparse. But as this is created on an announcement from a major convention, it is likely to be a notable game based on the publisher and credentials behind it, and makes no sense to delete at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Likely" is not "is". Major developers have made big announcements and not followed through before, so an announcement does not necessarily make something notable:
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (particularly see #5). — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment - Except there's gameplay and plenty of news articles that show it exists and is likely to follow through. This isn't a 'likely' thing. I stopped editing a long time ago because of you people that get your jollies off by deleting contributors work and I don't see any of your edits being interests in video games. In fact most of your work is coming in to the articles for deletion pages. If you don't have an interest that's fine but don't tread on others, you're the worst kind of wikipedian in my opinion. WhereAmI (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, of my 100 most recent edits, a grand total of 3 are !votes on AfD, and that goes back to 2011 since I'm only on here intermittently. Most of my edits are minor fixes and reverting vandalism. And this is the second time in this discussion that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against someone you disagree with. It's not helping your case. Back on topic,
    WP:CRYSTAL #5 states, and I quote, "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Looking at the reference links in the article, the two reliable sources (the third link is a press release on the Playstation.com blog and thus a primary source) are short and contain very little information, some of which ("Players apparently solve problems by interacting with her...") is speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - I was on the fence for a while, but there have been some rather detailed previews published, beyond just rehashes of the announcement, so I think there's enough to warrant meeting the
WP:GNG. (Beyond every video game websites under the sun doing an article on its announcement, there's detailed coverage from reliable sources such as http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-24-the-human-touch-the-brilliance-of-murasaki-baby and http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/PS+Vita/Murasaki+Baby/news.asp?c=53298 - for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - most of the main video game websites have article(s) about this upcoming game many of which speak positively - [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Therefore the 'not yet notable' does not stack up from my perspective. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran Ramakrishnan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no assertion of notability. Nick Number (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article. Went to school. Has a family. Sharp suit. Was in some clubs and won a college engineering club racing award - all things that billions of other people have done to some degree or another. Need to show something that sets apart as notable, see
talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate that this individual is at all notable. Were this not at the stage of a relisted AfD, I'd be suggesting a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If any sources are found that can help this adhere to GNG, do please contact me and I'll restore Wifione ^Message 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Long Learning (3L) Programme

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this program. Fails

WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and fails
WP:GNG. If any proper source exists, it would be better to be added in the Bureau of Energy Efficiency article. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

talk) 02:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

UNSW Chancellors

UNSW Chancellors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In and of itself not notable. This information more appropriately belongs on the University of New South Wales page, where there is also context. Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of New South Wales, assuming some source can be found to validate the contents of the list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of New South Wales. Seyasirt (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of New South Wales as the most obvious sensible solution. Useful information but a bit pointless as an article on its own. Stalwart111 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to
talk) 02:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

UNSW Vice-Chancellors

UNSW Vice-Chancellors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In and of itself not notable. This information more appropriately belongs on the University of New South Wales page, where there is also context. Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert to category. If by some chance it's kept, rename to
Stuartyeates (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of New South Wales, assuming some source can be found to validate the contents of the list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Stuartyeates objecting to that either but I'll ping him in case he's not watching this. I think a merge is sensible. Stalwart111 13:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I'd be happy with a merge, as
Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 260001–261000#260801-260900. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

260824 Hermanus

260824 Hermanus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged as CSD:G12 as a copyright violation of [41]. the JPL page has an ambigious copyright notice saying only that the contents may be subject to copyright. Given that a government contract is involved, there is the likelihood that some content is in the public domain. Without more information, I'm not sure how to proceed, and concluded a discussion was in order. If we conclude that the text is a copyright violation, please note that it is also found in another article
Meanings of minor planet names: 260,001–270,000
and will need to be corrected there.
There exists an alternative reason for deletion, which is that the article appears to fail the
WP:NASTRO Notability guideline. All the media reports are about the naming, and are perfunctory. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NASTHELP. It fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyvio The notice is the standard US Government disclaimer that such things as illustrations they reprint from elsewhere may have unfree copyright. Their practice which we accept is to put a notice on such items. This material seems their own work. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I could not find any sources other than database entries about this object, so it fails
WP:NASTRO, but redirection rather than deletion seems to be the more typical outcome for asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intertel (group)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Intertel (group)

Articles for deletion/Intertel (group) (2nd nomination)

Intertel (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has not been sourced up to the policy requirements of
WP:ORG. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to politely request WeijiBaikeBianji withdraw this nomination. I was looking for a biofeedback practitioner for my brother, and found several doctors, one who was Chairman of the Intertel Selection Committee. I looked for more information, and Wikipedia showed as a result. I was shocked to see this article nominated for deletion, since several doctors who work in psychology, psychiatry, engineering, etc. explicitly state their membership to this society. If it was only appear no "more than an off-hand way", it would not be logical they they declare membership with such an "obscure" group. Taric25 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently (July 25, 2013) submitted my WISC-R score to Intertel and my request was promptly followed up by their office. The membership process is excactly as described on their website and Intertel publishes a monthly magazine and has several regional meetings per. year in addition to their annual AGA meeting for all members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofVideoGames (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very important and valid entry/article. Since such a group would only really appeal to 1% of the population, I don't think it's really surprising that it's difficult to find popular sources that mention it. However, I noticed there are a number of published books, news articles, and scholarly journals mentioned in the "Sources and References." It seems that since all of this is verifiable material and there isn't actually that much publicly available on the internet, that is precisely why you should keep this entry. This organization still clearly exists and is unique in its own right, and many high profile people and intellectuals know about it. Just my feedback.
-- Agreed. This seems to have enough references to be solid (and many more than certain other articles). I'm not sure why exactly it's being considered for deletion? Makes sense that mainstream media and other publications trying to sell the most editions/copies of their product might shy away from talking about it too much, since it's a rather uniquely-defined group. But it doesn't seem like we should base deletion on whether or not big name publications have written a lot about it...Isn't this an encyclopedia trying to objectively include knowledge about a wide range of topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.212.230 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Reply An organization that is open to the top 1 percent of the population in IQ would potentially include at least 3 million members in the United States alone. I have a qualifying IQ, and know many members of an organization with more stringent selection criteria,[42] but have yet to encounter any
Wikipedia guideline about articles about organizations to understand what editing criterion is at issue here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting because original nomination was not completed properly.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Wine Guy~Talk 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for relisting: Although I used the usual tool for the AfD, I somehow missed a couple of the current standard procedural steps, and I appreciate you fixing that problem. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Wine Guy~Talk 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –Wine Guy~Talk 17:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. However if there's something I'm missing from a RS I'm willing to change. However for right now just can't seem to find anything more then mentions, no discussions on the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A lot of the sources are offline so I can't assess them, but from what I can see the group is mentioned but only in passing and with nothing to establish notability.--Korruski^Talk 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* I've checked many of the sources Yes, I submitted the AfD nomination after checking many of the sources myself, and noting that a previous editor (as disclosed by the article history) had checked many other sources, and found that they had nothing particular to do with the organization. The
WP:ORG policy is what is at issue here. Thus far, despite diligent search over several years, I have not found any reliable sources that provide information about the organization described in this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project V13

Project V13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems not to be released and definitely lacking in notability, its sole claim to fame seems to be that it needs investment to develop it. Yup, so do loads of other things too. Non notable cruftisement. Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Isle Studios (the developer) - all encyclopedic information is there already. Ansh6 6 6 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Always check the proper search engine for the wikiproject to see if any reliable sources cover it. [43] See how easy that is? I'll see about adding some good ones to the article. Dream Focus 22:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say
WP:CRYSTAL applies here, as most of this article is the gameplay of an unreleased game, and the rest is about the developers. Ansh6 6 6 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It passes
WP:GNG from all the coverage about the game, its development, funding, legal history, and what its about, plus screenshots have been posted. Dream Focus 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contagious (Third Day album)

Contagious (Third Day album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An early self-release demo from a later notable band. In no way does it meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Third Day discography. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Day (independent album)

Third Day (independent album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An early album that saw limited distribution and was re-packaged and reissued a year later. Not likely to see any significant coverage and likely not able to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything can or should be saved, merge content into the re-release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Third Day (album), which was a polished and "proper" re-release. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edequal Foundation

Edequal Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of WP:notability. Malala is notable but this not make this organisation so. Google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ( or userfy to creator, if he shows up here ) - I agree with the nominator. Other than having an app', and a mere mention in newsbytes about Malala, sorry. I commend them for what they do do, but the article needs a ref about THEM, please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a small (and thus NN) aid charity that has bandwagoned on what happened to Malala. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kirby: Right Back at Ya!#DVD. L Faraone 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby: Fright to the Finish!!

Kirby: Fright to the Finish!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers a non-notable direct-to-video TV film based on a notable 4kids television show, which is based on a popular video game franchise. I was out of luck that I could make any sort of benefit that the amount of notability of this movie complies with what Wikipedia strives for. Doing a Google News archive search only found sources announcing the release of the film, and there were no other sources anywhere I could find that were critical reviews, interviews with people who made and talk about the film, or any other in-depth info about the topic.
As it looks as of this time, the articles appears to read like promotionalism, with basically entirely unsourced info and original research about the film's references and releases, and thats really about it. Now I'm not suggesting to get rid of this article due to violating
WP:NOTPROMOTION, and, afterall, both the deletion discussions for main show article and the list of episodes aired from the show were snow keeped, and thats because Afds are not cleanup tags. However, I am requesting a delete due to no independent or secondary in-depth sources either included here or outside of Wikipedia that would establish notability. ~~And Hello, Zanimum! Doesn't your brain understand that Wikipedia is not a sales catalog nor adversting?!!!!!~~ Please ignore this argument. The article was created back in 2005, and I apologize to the creator if this was any sort of personal attack. 和DITOR E tails 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Unless I'm missing something here, there is no reason for this article to exist, because Notability is not inherited and all articles should meet
WP:GNG no matter what. EDITOR Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Article definitely needs lots of work, but it would be notable just as a re-edited compilation film of a portion of the series and can easily be fixed with some good sourcing and such. However, the attack on the creating editor who posted this article in 2005? That needs to be pulled back immediately. Attacking someone based on an article they created eight years ago is uncalled for, and we had looser standards back then; what you as the nominator wrote is incredibly uncalled for and your sarcasm reads as a personal attack. Otherwise, this article is easily rescuable (in fact before this edit added a textwall plot summary it was very light, so maybe work from that one instead of how it is as-is); at worst, this should be preserved as a redirect to
chatter) 06:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Response from nominator. I am not trying to suggest that the article should be deleted because it is messy. You should be concerning the notability of the topic, and not whether it needs cleanup. Sorry if the argument i made read like a personal attack, but I would also suggest to the creator that all articles should comply with
WP:GNG, and that notability is not inherited. Another thing: I don't think the article "can easily be fixed with some good sourcing and such," because, well, no other "good sources" in-depth about the subject exists. If you suggest to clean up the article, feel free to go ahead and do so. Thank you for reading this response. EDITOR Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The editor you singled out edited the article once in 2005 with a basic plot summary, nothing else. Others added on more information. Again, I ask you pull back the attack because none of the offending content was the originating editor's fault. chatter) 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Response from nominator. I never said it was his fault for putting in the original research and unsourced content. Please stop thinking like that. I'm trying to suggest that he should look for in-depth, reliable secondary sources before he creates an article on the subject. 和DITOR E tails 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my final response because this seems fruitless; the editor made one edit to the article ten years ago. The editor is a sysop now and doesn't need you to remind them of policy now because they're well-trusted in the community at this point, and they probably completely forgot they created this article in the first place. There are article edits I'm not proud I made back in 2005, but it's in the past and under different rules; the issue is with the others who added on since then, not Zanimum. Retract the attack, please. In the meantime, I am changing my rationale to a redirect to
chatter) 02:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As a OVA "feature length film" whose content comprises of 5 essentially unaltered episodes, the content is not particularly different nor meets N or GNG in this particular case. Of the few sources that exist, our best might just be Amazon on the movie details.[44] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
compilation of already existing separate works rather than an original video animation, I should think this makes more sense. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Kirby: Right Back at Ya!#DVD, already content there no need to add more (more so if it is unsourced) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maiday

Maiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Using {{
WP:BLP guidelines — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Significant and persistant coverage demonstrated and not substantively rebutted; insistence that it must also demonstrate "significant impact" is not supported by guideline language or consensus in this discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sandra Cantu

Murder of Sandra Cantu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per
WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an event that was deemed notable when it occured and for several years after does not suddenly lose notability. WP even have guidelines about that. Also per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the case of murders, WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG. all murders generate coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is your personal interpretation that I doubt is set in policy or guidelines. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, the case is the main topic of the book Searching for Sandra: The Story Behind the Disappearance of Sandra Cantu by Stacy Dittrich (2013) and it is also covered in books such as Women Criminals: An Encyclopedia of People and Issues (2011, pages 473-476) and The String of Pearls (2012). Cavarrone 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Snow keep" is inappropriate in this case, see
WP:SNOW.--MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It is inappropriate after your vote, not before. Cavarrone 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate after only three days and two "keep" votes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that inappropriate then? because you want it deleted and other users disagree with you. come on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Melanie, snow keep is appropriate when there is unanimous keep !votes of several voters. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This crime did not receive much long-term coverage. Press coverage was local and was related to developments in the case and trial.[45] The referenced book, "Searching for Sandra," was not published by a mainstream publisher and appears to be available only electronically. A tragic story but not one with lasting significance. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced book, "Searching for Sandra", is not available only electronically (found in one minute search). The attempt to dismiss a source just because "not published by a mainstream publisher" is also baseless, Blue Jay Media is the publisher of the author
ABC-CLIO, publisher of Women Criminals: An Encyclopedia of People and Issues is a mainstream publisher. Cavarrone 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You're right, there is a hardcover edition - published by Crime Street Press, which does not appear to have ever published anything else [46], so presumably self published. And I could not find a single review of the book anywhere except Amazon, so it does not seem to have created much of a splash. In any case, that bears on the notability (or not) of the book Searching for Sandra, not the notability of this crime. Being the subject of a little-noticed book and being mentioned in a large encyclopedia do not count as "ongoing significant coverage" in my book; others may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A whole book by a notable author is significant coverage, and four pages (not "a mention") in an encyclopedia are significant coverage too, they don't surely fall under the definition "trivial mention". I never heard before this discussion that the sources require to be "notable" themselves, I don't care of creating an article about the Dittrich's book nor I have never argued about its notability. My point is pretty simple, a crime that inspire and become the main topic of a whole book by a notable author released four years after the event is not a routine news. And a crime that has been already included in a printed "large" encyclopedia is probably notable enough to be included in our "larger" encyclopedia (Wikipedia). Cavarrone 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Cavarrone here. This crime is notable and is covered by guidelines of notability here on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a newsworthy event but it does not meet the
significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The coverage in this is secondary, because it needs to demonstrate that lasting significance or significant impact to be in policy. LGA _talk^edits 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Once deemed notable does not suddenly lose notability Wikipedia even have guidelines covering that. Cavarrone makes strong arguments about this article subjects notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read
WP:N#TEMP LGA.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

In spite of his large use of wikilinks and of dogmatic assertions, LGA still fails to explain why "this is a newsworthy event but it does not meet the inclusion policy". Being a
WP:GEOSCOPE" is also an easily rebuttable assertion, are you seriously claiming that this event was local and "reported only by the media within the immediate region"? With no mention all the US national-wide sources which reported the event, it received international coverage such as Honduras, Peru, Portugal, Mexico, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Russia. Cavarrone 23:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It does not meet the NOTNEWS policy, as this crime is not of any enduring significance for example ask yourself why is this crime important ?, why is it worthy of encyclopaedic note ? what other events were influenced by this one ? were is the encyclopaedic analysis of the event ? the article as it stands is a detailed log of facts. LGA _talk^edits 05:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, another variation of
WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. So, this crime event has already been included in a printed encyclopedia and it is the subject of a whole book by a notable author published no later than a few months ago and "it is not of any enduring significance"? NOTNEWS refers to breaking/routine news inside the 24-hour news cycle or shortly thereafter, surely not to events which, years later, become part of books and encyclopedias. If you disagree you are free to do it but, with respect, it would mean you have not understand what NOTNEWS means. Cavarrone 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

No not a variation of
WP:NOT; I look at the article and it does not demonstrate what it's enduring significance is. So I ask again very simply "What is this events enduring significance ?" LGA _talk^edits 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Enduring significance and more generally notability are not a matter of opinion but they are given from the sources, by their timeline (further coverage opposite to relatively short news cycle), their quality (significant coverage opposite to trivial mentions) and their geographical origin (national and international coverage opposite to local press).
AfD is not cleanup, there is no deadline for our articles and Wikipedia is a work in progress, the current shape of an article is not a reason to delete it but to develope and improve it. Cavarrone 07:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This article has previously been proposed for deletion and the the result was Keep [47] --Racklever (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. An event included in several books published years apart clearly meets
WP:PERSISTENCE and it is an event with a lasting impact. No clear advantage to readers and the encyclopedia in removing this. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note this is a likely hoax as none of the sources seem to exist, and typing in Bridgeport Andre Marshall comes back with Wikipedia mirrors. I'm in total disbelief that this survived since 2006. Secret ^account 02:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andre Marshall

Murder of Andre Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per
WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting significance to this crime so fails
WP:NOTNEWS. LGA _talk^edits 20:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTNEWS – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems cited, according to the sources cited in the article, in at least a couple of books. Such coverage is not merely a routine news spike, but it makes a strong case for the article meeting
WP:PERSISTENCE--cyclopia ^speak! 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC).[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the rationale given on
WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Drake Bell#Discography. This list isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search title, and the section I've linked lists the songs recorded by this artist. T C N7JM 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is a valid search query. "List of Drake Bell songs" might be a valid search term, but this isn't. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be, as this seems to be the naming convention for all other lists of this type. T C N7JM 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant with discography in Drake Bell article, and not sufficiently notable to meet policies for stand-alone lists (there's probably some pasted-up bio of Bell out there, but not enough serious analysis of his recording career, and most of these songs aren't notable). Redirect wouldn't hurt but probably not likely to be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator misleadingly quotes
WP:CSC criterion 2, though this doesn't necessarily mean the list as a whole is sufficiently notable. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Badlees

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the rationale given on
WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to The Badlees#Discography. "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search query, this section lists the albums recorded by The Badlees, and each of those pages lists the songs from its album. T C N7JM 09:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is a valid search query. "List of Badlees songs" might be a valid search term, but this isn't. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be, as this seems to be the naming convention for all other lists of this type. T C N7JM 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator misleadingly quotes
WP:CSC criterion 2, though this doesn't necessarily mean the list as a whole is sufficiently notable. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Arch Enemy

List of songs recorded by Arch Enemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the rationale given on
WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Arch Enemy discography. "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search query and this article lists the band's entire discography. T C N7JM 09:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is a valid search query. "List of Arch Enemy songs" might be a valid search term, but this isn't. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be, as this seems to be the naming convention for all other lists of this type. T C N7JM 11:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator misleadingly quotes
WP:CSC criterion 2, though this doesn't necessarily mean the list as a whole is sufficiently notable. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Opposing Viewpoints series. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints

Garbage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the series is notable, this book is not. I found no significant coverage to make this pass
WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This and all the other books in Category:Books in the Opposing Viewpoints series to Opposing Viewpoints series. The mother article should also be greatly expanded and not include a list of all the books, which would take up much too much room. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanna-Barbera characters

List of Hanna-Barbera characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list could have an endless amount of characters. I think the nav template does a better job of what this article intended. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change to a List of List of HB Characters, pointing to the respective shows where the characters come from (or if those shows have lists, those lists). A Navbox is absolutely not suited for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep essentially per Masem. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Masem. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List needs thought about how best to present information (e.g. per Masem's proposal), but it's not going to get that if it's deleted. Also, a list of characters allows inclusion of info such as voice actor, date of first appearance, etc, that can't fit in a template. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't delete something because you like the information in a different format better. This is a perfectly decent Wikipedia list, showing all the notable characters from the Hanna Barbera shows, many of them having blue links to their own Wikipedia article even. Dream Focus 16:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a pop culture continuum running from that which is pure fancruft to that which is truly encyclopedic. This tends to the latter, owing to the ubiquity and cultural impact of many of the franchises and characters on this list. Useful navigational function as a source of in-links and a useful quick reference for dates. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ The Academy for Contemporary Problems is a tax-exempt, nonprofit public research and education training foundation operated by the Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors' Association, National League of Cities, and U. S. Conference of Mayors. The Academy assists these seven national organizations of state and local officials in seeking solutions to critical problems in American states, counties, municipalities and the nation's federal system in general. The National Training and Development Service for State and Local Government (NTDS), a subsidiary of the Academy, promotes the training and development of state, county and municipal managers and offers assistance to those attempting to improve the processes of public problem-solving.

^ Michael T. Nolan “Public Hearings in the Juvenile Court: California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 676 as Amended by Assembly Bill No. 1374” 4 Crim. Just. J. 497 (1980-1981)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_21&oldid=1142632932"

[1] The Academy for Contemporary Problems is a tax-exempt, nonprofit public research and education training foundation operated by the Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors' Association, National League of Cities, and U. S. Conference of Mayors. The Academy assists these seven national organizations of state and local officials in seeking solutions to critical problems in American states, counties, municipalities and the nation's federal system in general. The National Training and Development Service for State and Local Government (NTDS), a subsidiary of the Academy, promotes the training and development of state, county and municipal managers and offers assistance to those attempting to improve the processes of public problem-solving.

[2] Michael T. Nolan “Public Hearings in the Juvenile Court: California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 676 as Amended by Assembly Bill No. 1374” 4 Crim. Just. J. 497 (1980-1981)

[1]

[2]